Advanced Flat Earth Theory

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX

Stanley Byers presented his findings to the National Science Foundation, the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research and to Dr. Harold Puthoff, with very interesting feedback.









As if this wasn't enough, here is the flux of gravitons paradox, (how a three body system cannot function given the attractive gravity scenario) - for a better visualization, use Sun - Jupiter - Io

"OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that this interchange of gravitational particles again will seem to result in violations of conservation of energy. We will do this by demonstrating that, if matter is indeed influenced by gravitational particles, then, even under normal orbital conditions, gravity should decrease, due to a gravitational shadowing effect. This shadowing effect would violate conservation of energy.

Thought Experiment: IMAGINE THAT GRAVITONS BEHAVE LIKE PHOTONS

(for descriptive purposes only)

To better visualize how this partial gravitational influence might be encountered, let us describe gravity and gravitational interaction in terms of light, so that:

If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.

Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)

Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass

In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.

In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.

In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.

In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.

In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.

This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.

Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed."

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX II

From a classic text on mechanics:




When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:

Gravity is a force.

Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)

Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583

Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.


Then, the Mass Attraction and General Relativity Attraction concepts are not viable models for the cause of gravity and inertia.

Applying any "attractive" force model to the Earth Moon dynamic forces, we obtain this system:

The Earth’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Moon.
The Moon’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Earth.

At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system; however,... the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body. Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".

This double force paradox is directly applicable to the "mass attraction",... the General Relativity “attraction” and all other attraction type concepts of gravity.

This example may help visualize the double force issue.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.   

The Mass Attraction Models of Gravitation

The attraction concepts accept Newton's inverse square equation of gravity's force between two bodies as:
             F = G x (M1 x M2) / r squared .
The surface gravity (g) for each of the bodies can be derived from the gravitational constant (G) and the mass and radius of the bodies. Using Newton's equation the g forces, allegedly "seated" in each of the "two" bodies acting on the other at a distance, can be calculated.

Within the "attraction" concepts:

From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 

Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!

The General Relativity Model of Gravitation

The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of spacetime" and the warped fabric of spacetime causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of the attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s and moon’s positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital forces of the Earth Moon system.

Stanley V. Byers

F. HOPKINSON'S MAYAN PYRAMID


Francis Hopkinson's 1778 Mayan Step Pyramid:



Why would a MAYAN PYRAMID appear on a seal for the United States? No Mayan Pyramids were known to exist in the 1776 United States!
Why include such an image after so many years of painstaking review by committees and congress?

The pyramid depicted in the image attributed to F. Hopkinson resembles exactly the well-known shape of the Mayan pyramids:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/a_f/bronk/tikal.htm
http://www.ancient.eu/Palenque/

But these images became known to the Western world, according to the official chronology, only after Alexander Humboldt's and John Lloyd Stephens' works were published (1810 and 1837-1841).

This is how we can infer that the biography of F. Hopkinson was forged/falsified at least 50 years later, by the same group of people who actually built not only the Mayan pyramids but also the monuments of South America and the temple at Angkor Wat in Asia.

Luther's Bill of Rights

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1641253#msg1641253

There were no Mayans, they could not possibly have had knowledge of precessional cycles:

http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.ro/2012/12/the-staggering-implications-of-maya.html


Few people understand that the image depicted on the Great Seal of the United States is actually a very sophisticated calendar.

The thirteen step Mayan pyramid is an obvious reference to the calendar attributed to the Mayans.

In the Mayan Great Cycle, there are 13 baktuns of 20 katuns each. Each katun consists of 20 tuns or 19.7 Years of our modern western calendar years.

http://strangeye.blogspot.ro/2012/11/the-mayan-end-game-calendar-and-seal.html (explains how the bottom step starts at 1756 AD, and the top of the pyramid symbolizes the year 2012 AD).

However, there is more to this.

Phoenix = Venus = Bennu

http://www.egyptianmyths.net/phoenix.htm

The Phoenix bird is a symbol of the solar transit of Venus.

The return of Venus as Morning Star after her solar transit signals the flight of the Phoenix.

1761
1765 = midpoint (11 years to 1776)
1769


2004
2008 = midpoint (11 years to 2019)
2012

Therefore the image points to the year 2019.


How to calculate the sun’s precession on a flat earth surface: the history of the world cannot be more than 500 years old

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1651574#msg1651574

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

The arclength for each gate (space alloted for the each of the six periods running from the winter solstice to the summer solstice, and from the summer solstice to the winter solstice) is 1048 km.

There are several possibilities relating to describing the solar precession within the context of the 1048 km alloted for the each gate.

Obviously, the upper bound must be 524 km (1048/2): solar precession = 1.5 km - 1.52 km per year, otherwise at the end of the precessional cycle the solar orbit would intersect the space alloted for the next gate (or the space beyond the tropic of Cancer/Capricorn latitudes).

That is, we would have a mobile section (which would be used by the Sun for 30 days, the interval alloted for each gate of 381.6 km) which now moves westward until it reaches the 286.1 km limit (that is, it can only move/travel for 381.6 km; its starting point will travel 381.6 km, across a time period of some 254.24 years, and its endpoint, already on the 381.6 km mark, will travel another 381.6 km to reach the 763.2 km limit, after 254.24 years, at some 1.5 km per year).

The lower bound has to be 262 km (1048/4): we cannot imagine a precessional cycle which would occupy less than 262 km (of the total 1048 km).

Therefore, the correct number is to be found between 524 km and 262 km.

Each and every FE believer must understand these facts very precisely: the history of the world cannot be more than a few hundreds of years old, as these numbers prove exactly this fact.

In the new radical chronology of history, the last major cosmic catastrophe occurred in the period 1760-1767, which coincides with the Venus solar transit data offered by modern astronomy, and with the exodus of Akhenaton from Egypt.

That is, the full precessional cycle of the sun cannot be more than some 260 years old.

That is why I chose 381.6 (600 sacred cubits) km as the figure which best encompasses all the available data.

Of course, the other FE/UAFE/RE should investigate this matter, and come up with their own numbers, if they choose a different way of analyzing the data. However, their calculations are bounded by the 524 km and the 262 km figures.

Solar precession 49 arcseconds per year

0.01361 degrees (136.1 height of the Giza pyramid)

(other figures are as follows: for 50.23 arcseconds per year, we will have an angle of 0.013971 degrees; for 49.54 arcseconds, an angle of 0.0137611 degrees; let us remember that 3.14 seconds is the mean deviation, while the actual deviation, over time, is from 3.11 seconds to 3.17 seconds daily, this would accumulate to some 19 minutes per year)

381.6/254.24 = 1.5 km per year of solar precession

That is, it will take 254.24 years for the Sun to complete its precessional cycle within the space alloted for the each gate (1048 km =~ 2 x 381.6 + 286.1; each gate will have a displacement factor of 286.1 km)

254.24 = 10000 sacred inches

254.24 years means a total precesional angle of 3.49528 degrees, where 1/0.00349258 = 286.1, the displacement factor the Giza pyramid

1761 + 254.24 = 2015.24

1765 + 254.24 = 2019.24 (thus we arrive at the same figure offered by the calendar depicted on the Great Seal)

However, we do not know precisely the very year in which the end of the Fourth World age occurred (it has to be somewhere between 1761 and 1767, according to my analysis of the new radical chronology of history).


Here is a work published by a Hungarian architect which takes a closer look at the precessional clock of the Giza pyramid:

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/mystic-places/giza-the-time-machine/





The time of the summer and winter solstice is marked by straight lines of 28 degrees each drawn from the apex of Khefren.
The summer solstice is marked by a straight line starting at the pyramid’s apex and going 28 degrees North (from West to East direction) placed on the drawing by J.A.R. Legon in 2000 (27.95 degrees). The line  of the winter solstice can be determined by mirroring that line in Southern direction. The north-eastern foot-point of the limestone Khentkawes will be the location of the winter solstice. As the years can be divided into two equal parts this way, the division of the year into two parts was created. The summer solstice is connected to the 21st of June, while the winter solstice to the 21st of December. Today, there are 6 months between the two dates.





However, the author of the article did not notice the most obvious fact:

858.5 = 286.1666 x 3

455.5 x 3.1416 = 1430.9954

2 x 1430.9954 = 2861.991


Let us now substract 3.49528 degrees (total solar precession on a flat earth) from 28 degrees (actually 27.95 degrees) and see what figures will be obtained.

With an angle of 24.4547 degrees, amazingly, the new side of the triangle will measure 391.94 meters, that is, 391.94 + 63.56 = 455.5 meters.

one sacred cubit = 0.6356 meters

391.94/143.05 =~ 1/0.3649 (1 - 0.3649 = 0.635)

The other side will measure 763.8 meters

763.8 x 5 = 6000 sacred cubits

763.2 = 2 x 381.6


This means, of course, that we have another proof relating to the fact that the builders of the Giza pyramids had at their disposal the knowledge about the radian measure, and also how to easily calculate various measures (angles, sides) in a right triangle.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1573684#msg1573684 (Gizeh pyramid advanced calculus)


The Sun will rise from the West at the time of Imam Mahdi's appearance.

This well-known prophecy is, of course, not taken seriously my most scholars within the context of heliocentricity; however, its astronomical meaning can be discerned immediately given the facts listed above: as the Sun reaches its orbital limit (the very endpoint of its alloted space within a gate), it will have to rise from the west to reach/achieve an orbit over the flat surface of the Earth (this is how we explain the various legends around the world concerning the reversal of the path of the Sun; this only can happen at the end of a world age).



For the 1048 km total measurement allowed for a single gate, we will have an equivalent angle of 9.611 degrees.

6 x 9.611 = 57.666 degrees

So there will be a discrepancy of 1.6666 degrees between this computation and the 56 degrees angle shown in the last figure above.

1.666 degrees corresponds to an arclength of 185.526 km.


Let us now modify the total arclength of the six gates to accomodate the 56 degree angle.

Then, the total arclength for a single gate will measure: 1017.5 km (space between gates 117.78587 km/5 = 23.557 km).

1017.5 = 4 x 254.75 km

Then something very interesting will occur: 286.1 + 365.5 + 365.5 = 1017.1

365.5/1.5 = 243.666

455.5 - 60 = 395.4  (395.4 x 0.3642 = 144; 1 - 0.3642 = 0.6358)

The total precessional angle would measure: 3.26985 degrees (for an arclength of 364 km)

But 243 years measures the very timing of the Venus solar transits (1761 + 243 = 2004; 1769 + 243 = 2012).

Since the time of rotation of Venus around its own axis is 243 days, the Sun will then have orbited 243 times above the flat surface of the Earth, as Venus has rotated 365 times around its own axis. What this means is that in the time between two Venus passages, Venus will rotate 365 times, the number of days in an earth year, around its own axis.


This would mean that the exodus of Akhenaton took place in the period 1773 - 1780; again, we have a reference to the mysterious number 1776 (the year of the solar transit of Mercury).


If we modify the displacement factor, from 286.1 to 254.24, then we will have:

254.24 + 381.6 + 381.6 = 1017.5 (so that we will keep the 3.49528 degree angle, and the date of the end of the fourth age, the Typhon/Venus cosmic cataclysm, in the period 1761-1767)



Therefore, the most likely setting for the solar precession calculations would be this:

total angle 3.49528 degrees (1/286.1 = 0.00349528)

total gate arclength = 1017.5 km

total precessional cycle arclength = 381.6 km

displacement factor for each gate = 254.24 km

381.6/1.5 = 254.24 years alloted for the total precessional period of time of the Sun

most likely date for the end of the fourth age: 1761-1767


Let us notice that the Great Seal can also be a reference to the 1776 solar transit of Mercury (bottom step being the 1769 solar transit). The thirteen step pyramid points to the year 2012 (1756-2012, Mayan calendar, explained earlier). Then 2012 + 7 = 2019, again (2019 is another year for the Mercury transit, as are 2006 and 2016).

In the previous message dedicated to Mercury/Xolotl/Venus/Hesperos, I added more references on the relationship between Xolotl and Mercury; also the link to the work relating to the fact that Aten actually represents Mercury:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427


As was noted before, the height of the Gizeh Pyramid is 141.34725 meters (where 14.134725 is the first zero of the Riemann's Zeta function).

27.95 degrees x 2 = 55.9 degrees (total angle)

To this value, we will have a corresponding arclength of 6222.78587 km

Substracting the 6 x 1017.5 km value, we obtain 117.78587 km

25/3 x 14.134725 = 117.78587

27 x 14.134725 = 381.6

18 x 14.134727 = 254.24

72 x 14.134725 = 1017.5

If we divide 27.95 by 3, we obtain 9.31666 degrees.

Then tan 9.31666 x 858.5 =~ 141.325

tan (2 x 9.31666) x 858.5 =~ 286.1

Then 455.5 - 286.1 =~ 168 (168 = 84 x 2; 840sc = 534, and 1680sc = 1066.6)

Keeping the same proportions related to 1017.5 and 14.134725 (27, 27 and 18; that is, 27 x 14.134725 and 18 x 14.134725), and applying them to 141.4725 we obtain, 53, 53 and 35.34.

53.3 is one of the universal constants of the Gizeh Pyramid (the others being, 136.1, 286.1, 26.666, 7.2738)

For the total figure of 141.4725, we have to include the distance between the gates (23.557 km; 11.7785 to the left, 11.7785 to the right, since we divide the 27.95 degree angle exactly by 3)

23.557 km (arclength) corresponds to an angle of 0.2116 degrees

tan 0.2116 x 858.5 = 3.172 (where 3.178 = 5sc)

Substracting 3.178 from 35.34, and also 0.6 (in order to add 0.3 to 53 twice, to get 53.3), we finally obtain the values: 3.178, 31.78, 53.3 and 53.3

These clues were left by the architects of the Gizeh Pyramid in order to correctly calculate the actual values (to the very meter) of the external gates (alloted spaces for the Sun/Moon).

FENRIR AND TYR: THE RACE TO THE CELESTIAL POLE





Fenrir = Black Sun = South Star

Tyr = Polaris Star


Tirawa Atius is the lord of all things and it is he alone who determines fate. At the beginning of the world, he set a large bull buffalo in the sky to the far northwest. With the passage of each year, the bull loses one hair; when all these hairs are gone, the world will end. As that hair falls, there will be widespread meteor showers, and the sun and moon will become dim.

In the beginning, Tirawa Atius appointed the North Star and the South Star to control fate. The North Star once spoke directly to the Pawnee and told them that the South Star moved just a little bit to the north with each passing year. When the South Star catches up with the North Star, then the world will end.

(see also Brady's Book of Fixed Stars, Bernadette Brady, pg. 66-67 on the capture of the North Star legend)


The declination of Polaris:

http://www.glyphweb.com/esky/concepts/northerncelestialpole.html

Polaris approaches the Celestial Pole:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180514095310/http://www.longcamp.com/polaris.html

http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/bjbecker/ExploringtheCosmos/lecture4.html

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm


The Black Sun getting closer to the Celestial Pole:



Before the end of the Fourth World, the North Star was Great Bear; before the Flood, it was Saturn (see http://web.archive.org/web/20111014063837/http://juchre.org/nor/larson3.htm )


The Kutenai of Canada have a legend of a great fire that spread over the earth when the sun was struck by an arrow. Coyote was envious and shoots the sun at sunrise. His arrows caught fire, fell down and set fire to the grass. The Kutenai still fear that  the world will come to an end and  watch for Polaris, the North Star, and should it not be in place then the end of the world is imminent.

Inuit tribe elders declare that the Earth has shifted position:

http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2015/04/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue.html

http://www.thebigwobble.org/2014/12/their-sky-has-changed-inuit-elders.html


Hopi Fire clan tablets revealed (with respect to Polaris):

https://web.archive.org/web/20170709211855/www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=14151

THE TYRANNY OF THE ROCKET EQUATION RESOLVED: ETHER PHYSICS PROPULSION

The recent developments in magnetoplasmadynamics have confirmed the discoveries made over 25 years ago in Eastern Europe: a new type of nozzle design that will allow the rocket to fly much higher than a similar rocket with normal exhaust, and to even develop antigravitational forces.

Moreover, it proves, once and for all, not only the existence of ether waves, but also the fact that such a rocket could not possibly function in full vacuum: that is, it needs ether waves for the propulsion to work.

In the classic work Build An UFO With Your Own Means (published in 1999), professor C. Bursuc describes the revolutionary nozzle design which was tested by the military (includes the full data sheets for the experiments carried out by the Ministry of Defense in 1988).

"They built it in form of a rocket with ring shape exhaust. The rocket flew four times higher than a similar rocket with normal exhaust. Also they said that it must have developed antigravity on vertical flight because on horizontal flight it flew just 2.5 times longer than the rocket with normal exhaust. The professor did extensive research on the device. It was tested in a military facility: at the gas exhaust speed of 3.5 Mach the plasma cone changed into a globular flash that was separated from the device and driven outside with little air flow, like one does with soap baloons.

So this device is an gravity shielding - plasma spinning engine combined with a particle accelerator."


Let us describe the ether physics involved here.

At a speed of 3.5 Mach for the gas, the ring shape exhaust will BLOCK any gases on the outside (the gases in the atmosphere), forming a vacuum chamber where ONLY ether waves will be allowed to enter, thus a double tornado plasma propulsion device will be created; if the speed is allowed to increase, of course, the double tornado plasma will become a BALL LIGHTNING OBJECT.

PROJEKT KRONOS: IMPLOSION OF THE ATOM - REVERSAL OF BIOCHIRALITY



Project Kronos was awarded the priority classification "Kriegsentscheidend"  the highest known category of secrecy and funding priority known in the Third Reich (higher than the UFO design; already by 1936 Vril society members knew how to build an UFO, using a mercury gyro double torsion ball lightning tornado):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1433567#msg1433567

From the Hunt for the Zero Point:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/hunt_zeropoint.pdf (chapter 20)

Following his capture, as much as Sporrenberg was able to divulge to Soviet intelligence and the Polish courts about the Bell was this, Witkowski said. The project had gone under two code names: "Laternentrager" and "Chroms" and always involved "Die Glocke"—the bellshaped object that had glowed when under test. The Bell itself was made out of a hard, heavy metal and was filled with a mercury-like substance, violet in color. This metallic liquid was stored in a tall thin thermos flask a meter high encased in lead three centimeters thick.
The experiments always took place under a thick ceramic cover and involved the rapid spinning of two cylinders in opposite directions. The mercury-like substance was code-named "Xerum 525." Other substances used included thorium and beryllium peroxides, code-named Leichtmetall.

Each test lasted for approximately one minute. During this period, while the Bell emitted its pale blue glow, personnel were kept 150 to 200 meters from it. Electrical equipment anywhere within this radius would usually short-circuit or break down.

During the tests, the scientists placed various types of plants, animals and animal tissues in the Bell's sphere of influence. In the initial test period from November to December 1944, almost all the samples were destroyed. A crystalline substance formed within the tissues, destroying them from the inside; liquids, including blood, gelled and separated into clearly distilled fractions.

Yet, even today researchers into this subject, have no idea what the Thule/Vril societies were actually aiming at with their Die Glocke project.


Implosion of the atom of mercury = using a high speed double torsion movement to capture laevorotatory subquarks (Vril), and turn the entire mechanism into a self-sustaining huge ball lightning device; the atom of mercury will implode from the level of protons to that of baryons.

Ether subquarks theory of the atom:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101


It is for this very reason, to attempt to do further research into the Kronos Projekt, that Rudolf Hess was dispatched to Antarctica to supervise the entire plan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg976837#msg976837

The Kronos Projekt = modification of the eighth chakra of the human body (the Kameswara Chakra, the Chakra of Rahu/Black Sun), in order to absorb DIRECTLY the positive tachyons/subquarks (Anu+) into the human aura, to attempt to replace at a faster rate the tachyons which are used up in the vital body in the normal course of everyday life.

However, there is a price to pay for this incursion into the aura: the astral body (emotional body) will no longer be able to connect with the higher emotional body or to develop a stronger bond; any possible reversal of the biochirality phenomenon must occur because of the influence/vibration of virtues within the higher emotional body, not  because of a mechanistic entrance into a very subtle domain.

ROCHESTER, NY - TORONTO




http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/#

Not only can we see the next tallest building, 298 meters, but also other skycrapers, like the Commerce Court West, 239 meters.

DISTANCE ROCHESTER NY TO TORONTO: 152.5 KM

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=421

CN Tower height = ~520 meters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto

Next tallest building: 298 meters


The tallest building in Rochester measures only 135 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rochester,_New_York

View from above of Rochester: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_aerial_aug_17_2007.jpg


CURVATURE FOR THE 152.2 KM DISTANCE: 454 METERS

ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS VIEW, ON A ROUND EARTH; there is no curvature over the lake Ontario, between Rochester and Toronto.

Using our visual obstacle formula:

h = AE = 215 meters (135 meters highest point in Rochester + 80 meters above lake Ontario level); 215 m = 0.215 km

we get

778 meters


Let us reduce the distance to 103 km; now, we will be some 80 meters above lake Ontario (80 m = 0.08 km).

The visual obstacle will measure 395 meters.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpswhoewt2o.jpg

BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

MOON'S RECESSION RATE PARADOX



"Currently, the moon is moving outward from the earth by 3.82 cm/yr (1.5 in/yr). However, this recession is highly nonlinear and would have been greater in the past. If one assumes unlimited extrapolation back in time, gravity theory shows the moon in direct physical contact with earth about 1.55 billion years ago. This is not to say that the moon was ever this near or this old. In fact, a moon located anywhere in the vicinity of the earth would be fragmented, resulting in a Saturn-like ring of debris encircling the earth. This follows because the earth’s gravity force would overcome the moon’s own cohesive force. The tides lead to a limited time scale for the moon, far less than 1.55 billion years. However, evolutionists assume that the moon and solar system are 4.6 billion years old. Also, life is said to have originated on earth about 3.5 billion years ago. The fundamental problem with the evolutionary time scale is obvious."

https://www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.php

The current lunar recession rate, after
orbital motions and oscillations are
subtracted, is 3.82 ± 0.07 cm/yr, or 1.5
in/yr .

The height or size of the tidal
bulges is proportional to 1/r³
where r is the earth-moon separation.
That is, the height of the tides increases
strongly as the earth-moon separation
decreases. Furthermore, the forces F1
and F2 themselves increase proportional
to 1/r³. Said another way, one can think
of this as positive feedback: As r decreases,
earth’s tidal bulges will grow
as 1/r³ and F1, F2
 will also increase as 1/r³.
As a result, the braking torque on
the earth’s rotation varies sharply as 1/r⁶.

Continuing this way, we obtain:

dr/dt = 2r/13t

Applying this equation to the present,
r = 384 thousand km, dr/dt = 3.82
cm/year, t gives the historical time at
which the moon would be positioned
at the earth’s location. The result is t =
1.55 billion years. This number should
be looked at as an approximate, extreme
limit on the moon’s age. The range of
alternate derivations is 1.4–2 billion
years, one-third to one-half of the moon’s
assumed age.

(Dr. Don DeYoung)

In order to try to offer any kind of an explanation, the official science has tried to bring up this kind of an argument: for a long period of history, the lunar recession was very small. Then, there was a sudden increase in the moon's recession rate.

However, Hansen's models (one continent only at the pole and another at the equator) bring up another even more difficult paradox: the Pangeea paradox.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61424.msg1604304#msg1604304

There are scientists, such Robert Gentry, who have lowered the upper limit/timescale to well under 20,000-30,000 years, since even then the moon would have been far too close to the earth (heliocentrical context).


The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


Who Parked Our Moon?

"Undoubtedly the greatest mystery concerning our Moon is how it came to be there in the first place. Prior to the Apollo missions, one serious theory as to the Moon’s origin was that it broke off of the Earth eons ago. Although no one could positively locate where on Earth it originated, many speculated the loss of material explained the huge gouge in the Earth, which forms the Pacific Ocean. However, this idea was discarded when it was found that there is little similarity between the composition of our world and the Moon.

A more recent theory had the Moon created out of space debris left over from the creation of the Earth. This concept proved untenable in light of current gravitational theory, which indicates that one large object will accumulate all loose material, leaving none for the formation of another large body. It is now generally accepted that the Moon originated elsewhere and entered the Earth’s gravitational field at some point in the distant past.

Here theories diverge — one stating that the Moon was originally a planet which collided with the Earth creating debris which combined forming the Moon while another states the Moon, while wandering through our solar system, was captured and pulled into orbit by Earth’s gravity. Neither of these theories are especially compelling because of the lack of evidence that neither the Earth nor the Moon seem to have been physically disrupted by a past close encounter. There is no debris in space indicating a past collision and it does not appear that the Earth and the Moon developed during the same time period.

As for the “capture” theory, even scientist Isaac Asimov, well known for his works of fiction, has written, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

Asimov was right to consider the Moon’s orbit — it is not only nearly a perfect circle, but stationary, one side always facing the Earth with only the slightest variation. As far as we know, it’s the only natural satellite with such an orbit.

This circular orbit is especially odd considering that the Moon’s center of mass lies more than a mile closer to the Earth than its geometric center. This fact alone should produce an unstable, wobbly orbit, much as a ball with its mass off center will not roll in a straight line. Additionally, almost all of the other satellites in our solar system orbit in the plane of their planet’s equator. Not so the Moon, whose orbit lies strangely nearer the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or inclined to the Earth’s ecliptic by more than five degrees. Add to this the fact that the Moon’s bulge — located on the side facing away from Earth — thus negating the idea that it was caused by the Earth’s gravitational pull — makes for an off-balanced world.

It seems impossible that such an oddity could naturally fall into such a precise and circular orbit. It is a fascinating conundrum as articulated by science writer William Roy Shelton, who wrote, “It is important to remember that something had to put the Moon at or near its present circular pattern around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every 90 minutes while 100 miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to give the Moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude … The point—and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the Moon — is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something’ had to put the Moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that ‘something’?”

If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” "

Of course, now we know that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse at all, see the full description of the Allais effect.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Nebular
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Fission
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Capture
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Accretion
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Planetary

JOURNEY INSIDE A BOSON

Secret Life of Nature (Peter Tompkins)

But first I had to be sure there really was an acceptable
correspondence between the theosophists' description of material
atoms and the "reality" of orthodox physicists.

To find out I went in search of the first qualified theoretical physicist
to reevaluate the theosophists' pioneering work in Occult Chemistry,
Dr. Stephen M. Phillips, a professor of particle physics. Phillips's book
Extrasensory Perception of Quarks, published in 1980, while dealing with
the most advanced nuclear theories, including the nature of quarks,
postulated particles even smaller than quarks as yet undiscovered by science.
Analyzing twenty-two diagrams of the hundred or so chemical
atoms described in Occult Chemistry by his two co-nationals at the turn
of the century, Phillips found it hard to avoid the conclusion that
"Besant and Leadbeater did truly observe quarks using ESP some 70
years before physicists proposed their existence." What is more, their diagrams
indicated "ultimate physical particles" even smaller than quarks.

By the time I discovered Phillips on the southern coast of England
in the seaside resort of Bournemouth, he had checked another eighty four
of the theosophists' atoms: all were seen by him to be 100 percent
consonant with the most recent findings of particle physicists. Every
one of the 3,546 subquarks counted by Leadbeater in the element of
gold could be correctly accounted for by Phillips.

Prompt and committed approval of Phillips's conclusions had already
come from the noted biochemist and Fellow of the Royal Society,
E. Lester Smith, discoverer of vitamin B12. At home in both the
mathematical language of physics and the arcane language of theosophy,
Smith spelled out his support in a small volume, Occult Chemistry
Re-evaluated. And Professor Brian Josephson of Cambridge University,
a Nobel Prize winner in physics, was sufficiently impressed by Phillips's
radical thesis to invite him to lecture on the subject at the famous
Cavendish Laboratory in 1985.


During this same period, fifty-six more elements were studied and
described by the theosophists, including five as yet unknown to science--promethium,
astatine, fancium, protoactium, and technitium--plus
six isotopes, though it was not then known that an element could
have atoms of more than one weight: its isotopes. Isotopes consist of
nuclei with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons,
and an element can have as many as ten or more isotopes. Neon
(mass number 20) and a variant meta-neon (mass number 22) were
correctly described in The Theosophist in 1908, some six years before
Frederick Soddy, another British physicist, introduced the concept of
isotopes to science, for which he, too, received a Nobel Prize.


At this point there appeared on the scene another psychic with an even
more particulate blueprint for the Higgs theory and its superstring
bedfellow. In 1991 Phillips was contacted by a Canadian psychotherapist
in Toronto, Ron Cowen, who had recognized in Phillips's book
pictures similar to the mental images he experienced during the
meditations he had been practicing for twenty years.

Intrigued by the prospect of further validating the nature of the
Leadbeater and Besant UPA, or subquark, Phillips traveled to Toronto
to the Dharma Center, where he tape-recorded
Ron Cowen in several many-houred sessions as the psychic
used his remarkable talent to delve even deeper into the microscopic
world of superstrings and gluons.

In a detailed paper-of which the following account is but a
precis, Phillips describes how Ron, given a capsule of hydrogen, but
without being told what it contained, used his ESP to penetrate the
glass and capture an object that gave him the impression of consisting
of two overlapping triangles with spheres at their corners, clearly,
says Phillips, two hydrogen nuclei, precisely as described by the theosophists.

Taking a closer look at one walnut, Ron saw that two threads came
out of it, one of which appeared fainter than the other. The clearer one
looked like a tangled, twisted piece of string, which could be pulled
out into a straight line with little effort and which, on being relaxed,
resumed its tangled state.

Thinking he would see a spiral within one of these strings, Ron
magnified it. Instead he saw a stream of bubbles flowing back and forth
so quickly he could not observe the moment they reversed direction.
As the bubbles came out of the walnut in single file to move along
what looked like a tube, some form of energy appeared to expand
them to their maximum over a distance of up to ten bubble diameters.
Then the current reversed.

That Ron should be able to see and describe such a bubble was amazing
enough, the diameter of the walnut-subquark being somewhere in
the neighborhood of 0.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo1 cm.

[bubble = boson]

[distance between bosons occupied by antibosons]

Fastening his attention onto a single bubble, Ron saw that as it
moved through the tube the tube rotated one instant in one direction,
next in the opposite, clockwise as the bubbles moved away, counterclockwise
as they moved toward him, though again he could not
distinguish the actual instant of transition. Estimating the distance between
successive bubbles as about six times the width of a bubble, Ron
noted that as each bubble passed, the tube seemed to collapse very
slightly, its edges no sharper than the boundary between two liquids.
Managing to move along with a bubble-obviously not moving his
physical body but his viewpoint-Ron saw that it was shaped like a fat
doughnut, with an indented sort of cap that led the bubble's motion
and trailed a tail. Wanting to see what was happening close up to one
of the walnuts, Ron approached a thread that appeared to link two
walnuts. Inside the thread, close to the walnut's outer surface, he found
himself moving in a graceful spiral. Down he went, like Alice in
Wonderland, through the coils of the UPA, about three times counterclockwise,
then along another spiral in a clockwise sense, feeling himself
being swept along, losing count of the turns. Deciding to follow
the rotation of the thread as seen from outside rather than by moving
along it, Ron went back up to the top of the UPA and got out of its
vortex. This enabled him to establish an essential feature of the threads:
they were one single thread.

So where did the bubblescome from and where did they go?
Moving back close to a thread,
Ron noticed that as a bubble in the thread entered the walnut it got
suddenly larger and became a puff of mist.This occurred at the surface
and caused a slight shock wave to dissipate inside the walnut while the
bubble disappeared before reaching the graceful gentle curve inside
its host. On the other side of the walnut, relatively smaller bubbles
streamed gently out through the other end of the thread, appearing as
if from nothing.

On closer inspection, the bubbles seemed to Ron to be created in
the corkscrew spiral near the exit because there was no sign of bubbles
at the start of this spiral. As the bubbles flowed back into the walnut,
instead of forming a puff like those entering from the other thread,
they simply shrank down to nothing.

Whenever bubbles reversed direction, the tail would fade away, to
reappear on the opposite side. On the bubble's bow, small concentric
circles like shock waves formed along the surface, like a cap. Bubbles
seemed to consist of nothing but a boundary surface, with no structural
features inside. Bubbles in what to Ron was thread number two
started out as mere squiggles of energy, pointed at both ends.Then the
squiggle got fatter, turning into the stable tadpole shape.

[squiggle of energy = smallest particle of quantum mechanics]


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101 (ether subquark quantum mechanics)

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (classic work on subquarks and ether)


A boson is a cavity resonator.

What is the structure of the tail, so far the smallest particle known to science?

The Gizeh Pyramid is a large scale model of the particles which do make up the tail (which itself becomes a boson or an antiboson).

One of the most mysterious features of this Pyramid is the scale of its measurements: certainly the pyramid could have been built larger or smaller (keeping all of the proportions equal, of course), but it could only function if and only if it was built to its present scale.

Let us imagine our Universe (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1918/9859/products/36_037_2048x2048.JPG?v=1507005205 ) to be the size of a subquark (https://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image007.jpg ). We know that a subquark has some 14 billion bosons (and many more antibosons) inside its structure, and that a boson consists of two inverted pyramids which exchange aether and ether. Then, roughly, the Gizeh Pyramid would correspond to the size of such a boson’s interior pyramids.

In the center of the boson we have the two apexes (called parabindu) which rotate as follows:

http://www.eaglespiritministry.com/pd/howto/images/mt_01.gif

One is a shadow of the other.

The virtual (thought-like) pyramid is facing downwards: this is called the aparabindu particle in vedic physics. It produces aether, the medium needed for the sound to propagate.

The upward facing pyramid (also called aparabindu; imagination) produces sound, which activates the shadow/thought pyramid.

“The universe is more like a giant thought than a giant machine and the substance of the great thought is consciousness which pervades all space.”
Sir James Jeans

Spirit – transcendent verb
Thought/Emotion – intentional/visualized verb (desire)
Imagination – potential verb (word for the idea/emotion) (knowledge)
Sound – manifested verb (action)


SOUND and SILENCE

ETHER and AETHER

THREE BODY PROBLEM PARADOX


http://www00.unibg.it/dati/bacheca/63/21692.pdf

The usual Newtonian model of the Solar system assumes that, for most purposes, it is sufficiently accurate to describe the orbits of each planet as an ellipse with its focus at the Sun. If each ellipse is replaced by the equivalent epicycle , the model is just as accurate.

It therefore follows that if Ptolemy had used an origin at the Sun then a simple model that represented the orbit of each planet by a simple offset epicycle would have represented the orbits of the planets just as accurately as the Newtonian model based on ellipses.

He (Kepler) gave the numerical values to the parameters of the ellipses that matched Brahe’s observations , and that settled the question ellipses were in, epicycles were out. He never stated and may not have noticed that every ellipse is an epicycle, so if he had calculated the epicycle parameters that corresponded to his ellipses the epicycles would have fitted the data just as well.


Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in the natural sciences (C.C. Lin/L.A. Segel), chapter 2: Deterministic systems and ordinary differential equations (pg. 36-70)

To accomplish a mathematical formulation, we adopt a polar coordinate system (r, θ) with the sun as the origin.

The second law of Kepler then states that, following the orbit (r(t), θ(t)) of a planet,

r²dθ/dt = h

The first law of Kepler states that the orbit can be described by the simple formula,

r = p/(1 + ecosθ)

Then one can show that the acceleration in the radial direction is

a_r = d²r/dt² - r(dθ/dt)² = -h²/pr²

Thus the acceleration is inversely proportional to the square of the radial distance.

Newton, by combining the above results with his second law of motion, was led to formulate the present form of the law of universal gravitation.

This, in turn, leads to a system of N particles in gravitational interaction; e.g., the solar system comprising the sun and the nine major planets.


But, there were no Copernicus, Galilei, Kepler or Newton.
 

Newton and Leibniz did not invent Calculus - Newton copied the three laws of motion from the Vaiseshika Sutra - Indian mathematical analysis results were also imported from a third source:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1574605#msg1574605


Copernicus, a fictional character invented at least two hundred years later:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860


The falsification of the biographies of Galilei and Kepler:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638725#msg1638725


A mathematical formulation of the planetary orbits, based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and Kepler's supposed elliptical orbits then will lead directly to the THREE/N BODY PROBLEM PARADOX.

This means that the entire foundation of RE/Heliocentrical mechanics/astrophysics is based on extremely false premises.

Moreover, whoever set up the entire system, had to drastically modify the diameters of all the planets, and also their distances from the Earth/Sun in order to construct a system of differential equations which led directly to nonsensical results, i.e., the n-body problem paradox.

That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg987360#msg987360

(KAM theory, homoclinic orbits, Smale horseshoes)


The quote from Henri Poincare, the greatest mathematician in the world at the end of the 19th century (S. Ramanujan was to appear some ten years later on the scene), has been deleted/censored from textbooks on the celestial mechanics at the undergraduate/graduate level.

A differential equation (initial value d.e.) approach to celestial mechanics IS IMPOSSIBLE.

As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

Here is Poincare describing his findings:

While Poincare did not succeed in giving a complete solution, his work was so impressive that he was awarded the prize anyway. The distinguished Weierstrass, who was one of the judges, said, 'this work cannot indeed be considered as furnishing the complete solution of the question proposed, but that it is nevertheless of such importance that its publication will inaugurate a new era in the history of celestial mechanics.' A lively account of this event is given in Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System. To show how visionary Poincare was, it is perhaps best if he described the Hallmark of Chaos - sensitive dependence on initial conditions - in his own words:

'If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.' - in a 1903 essay 'Science and Method'


That is why the conspirators had to invent a very complicated new theory, called chaos theory, with the help of G.D. Birkhoff and N. Levinson; their work was the inspiration for S. Smale's horseshoe map, a very clever way to describe Poincare's original findings as "workable" and "manageable". The formidable implications are, of course, that chaotical motion of the planets predicted by the differential equation approach of the London Royal Society is a thing that could happen ANYTIME, and not just some millions of years in the future, not to mention the sensitive dependence on initial conditions phenomenon.

Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.

This is why the computer model of Jacques Laskar is pure fantasy, as it is completely detached from reality.


http://ptrow.com/articles/ChaosandSolarSystem5.htm


http://web.archive.org/web/20090108031631/http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/science/chaos_theory_explained.htm

RE theory requires a full void, otherwise the equations which "describe" the orbits of the planets will have to include friction terms.


KEPLER MOTION

In an appropriate coordinate system, the motion of a planet around the sun (considered as fixed) with the attractive force being proportional to the inverse square of the distance /z/ of the planet from the sun is given by the solution of the second order conservative system with the potential function -/z/^-1 for z =/0.

A mechanical system without friction can be described in the Hamiltonian formulation.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-662-46042-9_4#page-1

References for Celestial Mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics:

V.I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1978

C.L. Siegel and J. Moser, Lectures on Celestial Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1971

J. Moser, Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems, Princeton Univ. Press, 1973

Area Preserving Maps, Nonintegrable/Nearly Integrable Hamiltonians, KAM Theory:

http://www.math.rug.nl/~broer/pdf/kolmo100.pdf




Here is an introduction to homoclinic tangles/orbits, explained visually:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~rmoeckel/presentations/PoincareTalk.pdf



Now, let us get more technical in describing the stability of the heliocentrical solar system.

Two of the greatest Soviet mathematicians of the 20th century, A.N. Kolmogorov and V.I. Arnold asked the following question: to what extent the geometric structure of the quasi-periodic dynamics of a Hamiltonian system persists under small perturbations that destroy the toroidal symmetry?

This led to the famous KAM theory (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser); however, it is valid for "sufficiently" small perturbations.

In reality, the perturbations in the solar system are far too large to apply KAM theory.

So, the mathematicians have to rely on computing Lyapunov exponents, in order to try to predict any region of instability/chaos.

Even in this case, the measured Lyapunov exponent may have no relation to the true exponent: great care has to be taken in computing such quantities.

In 1989, J. Laskar proudly announced that the exponential divergence time for the solar system is 5 million years.

However, again, this calculation DOES NOT take into account the sensitivity of the results due to uncertainties of the knowledge of true masses and the INITIAL CONDITIONS of the planets.


Jack Wisdom (MIT): It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the orbit of the Earth will suddenly exhibit similar wild excursions in eccentricity.

The exponential divergence of chaotic trajectories precludes long-term prediction given the limited knowledge of the state of our solar system.

Lyapunov exponents and symplectic integration.


Let d(t) be the distance between two solutions, with d(0) being their initial separation. Then d(t) increases approximately as d(0)e^λt in a chaotic system, where λ is the Lyapunov exponent. The inverse of the Lyapunov exponent, 1/λ, is called the Lyapunov time, and measures how long it takes two nearby solutions to diverge by a factor of e.

Since the solar system is not integrable, and experiences unpredictable small perturbations, it cannot lie permanently on a KAM torus, and is thus chaotic.


Sussman and Wisdom's 1992 integration of the entire solar system displayed a disturbing dependence on the timestep of the integration (measurement of the Lyapunov time).


Thus, different researchers who draw their initial conditions from the same ephemeris at different times can find vastly different Lyapunov timescales.

Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine


To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.


To put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.


Let us take a closer look the chaotic dynamics of planetary formation; thus, a clear indication that the initial conditions cannot be predicted with accuracy (as we have seen, a mere 15 meters difference in the data will have catastrophic consequences upon the calculations).

OFFICIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION

Four stages of planetary formation

Initial stage: condensation and growth of grains in the hot nebular disk

Early stage: growth of grains to kilometer-sized planetesimals

Middle stage: agglomeration of planetesimals

Late stage: protoplanets


For the crucial stages, the initial and early stages, prediction becomes practically impossible.

As if this wasn't enough, we have absolute proof that in the age of modern man planet Earth underwent sudden pole shifts (heliocentrical version), thus making null and void any integration of the solar system/Lyapunov exponents calculations which do not take into account such variations of the system's parameters:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1546053#msg1546053

Let me show you what sensitive dependence on initial conditions means, using one of the most famous examples: the Lorenz attractor butterfly effect.

In 1961, Lorenz was running a numerical computer model to redo a weather prediction from the middle of the previous run as a shortcut. He entered the initial condition 0.506 from the printout instead of entering the full precision 0.506127 value. The result was a completely different weather scenario.

Here is the set of Lorentz equations:



Now, the set of differential equations which describe the planetary orbits is much more complicated than this.


Again, to put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.

The true sizes/masses of the planets and the Sun were modified in such a way AS TO TEMPORARILY FIT the set of ordinary differential equations.

This set of ordinary differential equations cannot predict anything relating to the future of the solar system even if we look at a time scale of some three hundred years from now; in the same manner, they cannot say anything about the past beyond the same three hundred year mark.

We have at our disposal the most formidable proof, the Gauss Easter formula, which does show that the entire history of the world, its very chronology, was faked/falsified at least after 1700 AD. (see page 1 of the present thread).

Here are the official RE equations of motion:



They lead directly and conclusively to homoclinic tangles; moreover, since the initial conditions cannot be known at all, with any degree of precision, it means that this set of equations cannot be used at all to describe any orbits of any planets.










(from the classic work by Charles Ginenthal, Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

MARTIAN FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX

The faint young sun paradox, one of the most devastating arguments to be used against heliocentricity, cannot be resolved; but at least mainstream scientists have given it their best, for the past fifty years, in order to find a solution:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

In the case of Mars, however, they will not even try to attempt to put forward any hypotheses.


Today, Mars has a temperature far too cold to allow water on its surface. Therefore, as one goes back into the past, the temperature of Mars’ atmosphere will become even colder because the Sun was cooler in that far distant period.

Eric Burgess, as early as 1985, addressed this problem:

“The problem with Mars is even more difficult to resolve. Today, Mars is a
frozen world, yet in times past, large quantities of liquid water must have flowed
across its surface to sculpt the erosional features seen today. Yet, at the time of a
lower solar luminosity, Mars would be expected to be much colder than today.”

Jeffrey S. Kargel gives a more in depth description of this problem:
“The emerging vision of a once-watery Mars poses a serious dilemma. Mars is
now so remote from the Sun that water is frozen solid (in equilibrium with the barest
trace of water vapor), and the radiation environment billions of years ago was much
worse. The Sun has steadily brightened with time, and running the clock backward
make the Sun an even fainter object delivering only 70% as much heat and light 4
billion years ago as it does today. Yet, Martian geology indicates that liquid water
was present [then]."

“Mechanisms involving alternatives to ice and water could not explain certain
features and soon fell by the wayside, but so did some of the water – and ice –
related hypotheses. For instance, the wind hypothesis for the origin of [massive
flooding] outflow channels failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for erosional
terraces and ‘high water’ marks [observed] in Martian channels, the transport and
deposition of large boulders and the chaotic nature and origin of chaotic nature and
origin of collapse[d land] of the sources of the [immense] outflow channels. The
proposed eolian [wind sculpted] origin of Martian channels had no sustaining
power and it withered and blew away without a sound foundation; most of these
non-water ideas were soon forgotten.”

Having failed to supply non-water sources to explain the evidence, the scientists tried
to “finagle” with the atmosphere and “rethink” certain gases existed that produced a greenhouse effect to allow water to flow on Mars in its early history.

Careful calculations contradict the early greenhouse effect thesis for Mars. Mars’ atmosphere containing carbon dioxide carbon monoxide and water vapor, would not have been able to last. These gasses, the calculations show, would have condensed out of it quite rapidly and permanently. Therefore, much more carbon dioxide would be required to heat the atmosphere to offset the condensation problem. Secondly, where did all this extra carbon dioxide come from? By analogy with the early Earth, one can get some idea of the enormity of the problem.

Kasting explains:
“Warming early Mars is a challenging problem, both because of the planet’s
distance from the Sun and because the Sun, itself, was less bright. . .
“In climate calculations . . . we initially determined that this low solar flux could
have been offset by a CO2 - H2O atmosphere with a surface pressure of about 5 bars
[5 times that of the Earth]. However, we failed to account for the fact that CO2
should have condensed in the upper parts of our model troposphere . . .
“When we revised our calculations to include this effect, we got a rather
surprising result. We found it was impossible to warm early Mars with CO2! . . .
The results show that for the present [day] solar flux, Mars’ surface temperature
could be raised to arbitrarily high values by adding CO2 to its atmosphere. About
2-3 bars of CO2 would be sufficient to being the average temperatures above the
freezing point of water . . .
“For early Mars, though, the result of increasing atmosphere CO2 levels are
entirely different. At 3.8 Ga [billion years ago], the latest time when most of the
valleys could have formed, the solar flux [to Mars] was still only 75 percent of its
present value . . . and it takes us back to the question: How can we explain the
fluvial features? . . .
“Couldn’t one simply add more CO2 . . . and thereby make them warmer? The
answer is no, for two reasons . . . at high CO2 pressures and low solar fluxes, CO2
. . . forms clouds of CO2 ice . . . surprisingly, CO2 clouds would actually have
warmed Mars’ surface . . . But the process of forming the CO2 clouds would
[remove heat and] have helped limit greenhouse warming . . .
“A second equally important factor in limiting the magnitude of the greenhouse
effect on early Mars is the effect of CO2 on the planet’s albedo [reflection of
sunlight by cloud cover back to space] . . . Hence, when the atmosphere pressure
increases, more sunlight is scattered back into space, and the planetary albedo
increases, cooling the climate [even more greatly]. Both these factors make it
difficult or impossible to warm early Mars.”

(Charles Ginenthal, from his classic work: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)


There would be only one solution, in the heliocentrical context: that Mars was in an
orbit closer to the Sun recently.

However, this would shatter the very foundation of the present day approach to celestial mechanics detailed in my previous article: the stability of the orbits of planets.

Moreover it brings into play the same paradoxes encoutered in describing Earth's past pole shifts (heliocentrical context): how did the Earth (and Mars) manage to REGAIN their rotational speed around their own axis?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

The sudden shift in the direction of the axis of Earth (or Mars) would have meant a slowing down of the velocity of the diurnal rotation of the Earth, and there would have no way for the Earth (or Mars) to regain the same velocity of the diurnal rotation as before.

PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PRECESSIONAL PARADOX

While precession theory works in determining orientation to points outside the solar system it does not work and is not applied to locating fixed points within the solar system. One example of that is the Perseid meteor shower.

"Perseids Meteor Shower shows that the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees in a
tropical year."

There are certain meteor showers that can be seen regularly on the same date each year.
They are thought to be the result of the Earth, moving along its orbital path around the
Sun, crossing through that point in space where a comet once intersected our orbit path.
The leftover debris hitting our atmosphere is the cause of these annual meteor showers
that come and go like clockwork. One of the strongest and most well known is the
Perseid Meteor which peaks each year every August 11th and 12th (my birthday). Ever
since I can remember this meteor shower has occurred on my birthday.

Sometime around the mid1500’s, after the St. Lawrence feast day had been established as August 10th, people began to call this meteor shower the “Tears of Saint Lawrence”, because right after the feast day the meteor shower would peak for a day or two. Still today the peak of this meteor shower is August 11th and 12th.

As long as the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees equinox to equinox, and we keep
our current system of leap corrections we should continue to see this meteor shower
peak every August 11th and 12th for centuries to come. This is because our current
calendar system of time loses less than 1 day every 3200 years relative to the actual
motion of the equinox within the calendar. In other words the equinox remains fixed
within the calendar moving only slightly for differences between the calendar days (365)
and the Earth’s actual rotations in a tropical year (365.2422) and always quickly adjusted
by leap days every four years.

BUT WAIT, lunisolar precession theory says the Earth does not go around the Sun 360
degrees every equinox. It says it comes up 50 arc seconds short of 360 degrees every
tropical year and this is why we see the fixed stars precess by 50 arc seconds per average
tropical year. But if the Earth does not go around the sun 360 degrees then the Perseid
meteor shower should reflect precession and slip through the calendar 1 day in every 72
years, meaning it should have moved almost six days exactly since the Gregorian
Calendar Reform in 1582. We know the fixed stars “outside the solar system” have
indeed appeared to move by this much in that time period due to precession but why
hasn’t the Perseid reference point “within the solar system” changed by this same amount of precession? If precession is caused by local sources wobbling the Earth then anything and everything outside the Earth should appear to move at the same rate, excluding proper motion.

Answer: The Earth does not change orientation to the Perseid meteor shower, or to the
Moon, or to eclipses, or to any points of planetary occultations or to anything within the
solar system, because local wobbling of the Earth does not cause precession. What we
call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solar
system” because precession is actually due to the motion of the solar system itself.

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/papers/ComparisonPaper.pdf


Another marker is the Perseid meteor shower linked to comet Swift Tuttle that is an annual event that has been observed for the last 2,000 years, making it useful for the analysis of the precession of the equinoxes. The radiant of the shower apparently comes out of the constellation of Perseus on or about August 12 to 13 of each year and continues to as late as August 24th with the peak occurring on the 13th. Some Catholics refer to the Perseid meteor shower as the "tears of St. Lawrence", as August 10th is the date of the saint's martyrdom. This phenomenon that is linked to the Perseid meteor shower is dated for August 10, between the years of 225 – 258 AD given for the lifetime of this early Christian that was put to death by the Romans. This execution took place on August 10, 258 when a meteor shower was noted and hence the connection. If we account for precession over the same period of 1,753 years, we should see a difference of 24.3 degrees of precession. This should have put the meteor shower on or about July 16th, instead of August the 10th as recorded. The Perseid shower has been noted almost continually year after year from that time to this, except during unusual circumstances of the darkening or the skies post 535 AD and the following dark ages. This one instance and others like it suggest that the precession has some other cause than the solar system.

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Precession-Problem

PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PRECESSIONAL PARADOX II


Official chronology of history

By tradition, St Lawrence was sentenced at San Lorenzo in Miranda, imprisoned in San Lorenzo in Fonte, and martyred at San Lorenzo in Panisperna. The Almanac of Philocalus for the year 354 mentions that he was buried in the Via Tiburtina in the Catacomb of Cyriaca by Hippolytus and Justin the Confessor, a presbyter. One of the early sources for the martyrdom was the description by Aurelius Prudentius Clemens in his Peristephanon, Hymn II.

St Lawrence is one of the most widely venerated saints of the Roman Catholic Church. Legendary details of his death were known to Damasus, Prudentius, Ambrose and Augustine. The church built over his tomb, San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, became one of the seven principal churches in Rome and a favorite place for Roman pilgrimages. Devotion to him was widespread by the fourth century. Since the Perseid Meteor Shower typically occurs every year in mid-August on or near his feast day, some refer to the shower as the "Tears of St Lawrence."

On 10 August, year 258 AD, the execution of St Lawrence was carried out.

His celebration on 10 August has the rank of feast throughout the Catholic world.

http://througheternity.tumblr.com/post/94146358934/night-of-the-shooting-stars-san-lorenzo


The Escorial Palace, at the foot of Mount Abantos in the Sierra de Guadarrama, was built by King Philip II of Spain to commemorate the victory over King Henry II of France at the Battle of St Quentin, which took place on the feast of St Lawrence, 10 August 1557.

"On August 10 1566, the feast-day of Saint Lawrence, at the end of the pilgrimage from Hondschoote to Steenvoorde, the chapel of the Sint-Laurensklooster was defaced by a crowd who invaded the building. It has been suggested that the rioters connected the saint especially with Philip II, whose monastery palace of the Escorial near Madrid was dedicated to Lawrence, and was just nearing completion in 1566"


One of the earliest descriptions of an August meteor display was briefly mentioned in a book written by Pieter van Musschenbroeck in 1762. In volume two of his book, Introduction a la Philosophie naturelle, he noted that after the heat of summer, falling stars are seen during August, at least in Belgium and the cities of Leiden and Utrecht in the Netherlands.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-perseids-are-coming-1


Citing Quetelet, 'a superstition has 'for ages' existed among the Catholics of some parts of England and Germany that the burning tears of St. Lawrence are seen in the sky on the night of the 10th of August; this day being the anniversary of his martyrdom.'

http://www.qsl.net/w8wn/hscw/prop/perseids.html


He also searched historical sources for evidence that August meteors had been seen in previous years around the same date. He found seven cases, from 1029 in Egypt to 1833 in England.

The earliest discoverers of the Perseids were anonymous, and their feat lay buried in an English farmer's almanac. Both Quetelet and Herrick chanced upon it. Bravely, Herrick acknowledged, "The annual occurrence of a meteoric display about the 10th of August appears to have been recognized for a very great length of time." Thomas Furley Forster of London had recorded it in 1827 in his Pocket Encyclopaedia of Natural Phenomena. "According to Mr. T. Forster," Herrick reported in October 1839, citing Quetelet, "a superstition has 'for ages' existed among the Catholics of some parts of England and Germany that the burning tears of St. Lawrence are seen in the sky on the night of the 10th of August; this day being the anniversary of his martyrdom."

"The peasants of Franconia and Saxony have believed for ages past that St. Lawrence weeps tears of fire which fall from the sky every year on his fete (the 10th of August)," Herrick wrote, quoting a Brussels newspaper.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/the-discovery-of-the-perseid-meteors/


Sometime around the mid1500’s, after the St. Lawrence feast day had been established as August 10th, people began to call this meteor shower the “Tears of Saint Lawrence”, because right after the feast day the meteor shower would peak for a day or two. Still today the peak of this meteor shower is August 11th and 12th.

But if the Earth does not go around the sun 360 degrees then the Perseid
meteor shower should reflect precession and slip through the calendar 1 day in every 72
years, meaning it should have moved almost six days exactly since the Gregorian
Calendar Reform in 1582.

If we account for precession over the same period of 1,758 (2016 - 258) years, we should see a difference of 24.3 degrees of precession. This should have put the meteor shower on or about July 16th, instead of August the 10th as recorded.


Each and every account of the official chronology of history tells us that the Perseid meteor shower occurred each and every year in the month of August, peaking around August 11th or 12th.

Yet, this fact defies the very definition of the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (precession).

Obviously, there was no precession of the axis of rotation of Earth in the past; the Perseid meteor shower offers another definite proof that the official chronology of history was totally and completely forged.

THE ACCELERATION OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION PARADOX

As can be seen from the chart below, the precession rate (now 50.29 arc seconds per year) has been accelerating over the last 100 years. This means the calculated time required to complete one precession cycle has been falling. Note that the precession rate was under 50.255 arc seconds before 1900 when Simon Newcomb first began to keep accurate records, (meaning a complete precession cycle would have taken about 25,790 years), but now just 100 years later, the rate is 50.29 arc seconds per year and the computed time to complete one full cycle is down under 25,770 years. That is a decline of 20 years of periodicity in just 100 years of record keeping. Also, the trend is fairly consistent year over year and it is accelerating.

If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!

Following is a chart with points representing the actual annual calculated precession rates
for the last 100 plus years. The early calculations are by Simon Newcomb and the later
by Williams or the Astronomical Almanac. We have drawn a line in the middle of the
dots to show the slope of the trend. If precession were the result of our Sun’s motion
around another object (causing a reorientation of the Earth) then according to Kepler’s
laws any trend line would reflect the signature of an elliptical orbit.



Figure 1. Current trends in precession. Source: 1900-1980 The American Ephemeris and
Nautical Almanac;
1981-2002 The Astronomical Almanac. United States Naval Observatory


However, in the lunisolar model (local gravity) the changing trend in precession rates was entirely unexpected.

The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

W. Cruttenden


The Allais Effect (axial precession is not related to Newtonian mechanics)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033

THE ACCELERATION OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION PARADOX II



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

 

PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PRECESSIONAL PARADOX III

http://www.academia.edu/1334605/_Bronzino_s_Martyrdom_of_St._Lawrence._Counter_Reformation_Polemic_and_Mannerist_Counter_Aesthetics._RES_46_Polemical_Objects_2004_99-121

These possibilities will be explored in relation to one work, often seen as a colossal apotheosis of Mannerist art in all its supposedly effete virtuosity and courtly sycophancy: Bronzino's Martyrdom of St. Lawrence in the basilica of San Lorenzo in Florence. The massive fresco was commissioned from Agnolo Bronzino by Duke Cosimo de Medici in 1565 and unveiled on August 10, 1569, the feast day of the Medici family saint.


Roman worship of the Perseid meteor shower, mentioned in the official chronology of history:

Il culto di Priapo si diffuse in Italia intorno al III secolo a.c. come augurale per la fertilità dei campi, mescolandosi a Pan, Dioniso, Luperco e Fauno. Inuo-Priapo si manifestava benigno ogni anno, intorno al 10 di Agosto, con una pioggia dal cielo, a garanzia di un ricco raccolto per l'anno successivo. Questo sciame meteorico annuale, è oggi noto come "lacrime di San Lorenzo".

(from a very extensive work on the subject, published by the progettofahrenheit website)


These historical accounts from the official chronology prove clearly that there was never a shift in the axis of rotation of the Earth: the Perseid meteor shower falling each and every year on August 10 defies the precession of the Earth hypothesis.

Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 743 AD (and not in the year 325 AD).

The acceleration of the annual precession shows that this phenomenon has nothing to do with attractive gravity (lunisolar theory).

The Allais effect proves that precession is not related at all to Newtonian mechanics.

FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION PARADOXES


In an earlier message it was shown that Kepler's first law leads directly to the "law" of universal gravitation, which in turn resulted in the three body problem paradox and the spurious results which accompany this phenomenon.

However, Kepler's first law was fudged to begin with.

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .

“But a close study of Kepler’s New Astronomy . . . shows that the plotted points
[he used] do not fall exactly on the ellipse (of course, measurements rarely fall
exactly on a theoretical curve because they usually have random error sources
incorporated into them.) Curtis Wilson (1968), however, carries error argument
further. The lack of precision inherent in the method . . . would have forced Kepler
to use the plotted points only as a guide to his theorizing . . .
“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical. Donahue reasons that Kepler must have gone back to revise his earlier
calculations that were made prior to his understanding that the orbit of Mars was
actually elliptical. Thus, anyone who cared to check Kepler’s tables would find
numbers that are consistent with the elliptical orbit [he] postulated for Mars and
would be inclined to believe that the numbers represented observational data. In
fact, they were computed from the hypothesis of an elliptical orbit and then
modified for measurement error; such data, if they were truly observations, would
be prime facie evidence of the theories’ correctness.

“So Donahue . . . realized that the theory was not obviously derivable from the
observations, . . . ‘Not only would the numbers be confused, but Kepler saw clearly
that no satisfactory theory could come from such a procedure. . . [Instead], he chose
a short cut.’ He became so convinced of what drove these physical processes that he subjectively projected his personal nonobservational-based belief onto the reporting scene to convince others in the scientific community of the validity of his theories.”

Thus, the very first law of planetary motion was built not on observation but on theory
and the mathematics was then employed to prove the theory not test it.

(from the classic work by Charles Ginenthal, Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION PARADOXES II

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..217D

Kepler's fabricated figures, by W.H. Donohue

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.

The discovery was made by Dr. Donahue, a science historian, while translating Kepler's master work, ''Astronomia Nova,'' or ''The New Astronomy,'' into English. Dr. Donahue, who lives in Sante Fe, N.M., described his discovery in a recent issue of The Journal of the History of Astronomy.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer. After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''


Thus, the notion that a planet orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit was a simple fabrication, based on fudged data.

FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION PARADOXES III

No planet could revolve around the Sun in an elliptical orbit based on Newtonian mechanics.


We have a tangential velocity and a centripetal acceleration—which causes a so-called instantaneous centripetal velocity. Newton assigned the centripetal acceleration to gravity and the tangential velocity to the orbiting body itself. That is, the tangential velocity is not caused by the gravitational field. How could it be? It is perpendicular to that field, whether the field is rectilinear or curved. It is stated explicitly that the earth had this velocity before it entered the orbit. Newton calls it the body's "innate motion."

Neither Kepler nor Newton nor Einstein nor anyone else has tried to build a necessary connection between the tangential velocity and the centripetal acceleration, not with elliptical orbits or any other orbits.

All orbits, whether elliptical or circular, are assumed by historical and current theory to be composed of only two motions, a centripetal acceleration caused by gravity, and a velocity due to the orbiter’s “innate motion.”

The orbiter must retain its innate motion throughout the orbit, no matter the shape of the orbit. If it did not, then its innate motion would dissipate. If it dissipated, the orbit would not be stable. Therefore, the orbiter always retains its innate motion over each and every differential. If we take the two most important differentials, those at perihelion and aphelion, and compare them, we find something astonishing. The tangential velocities due to innate motion are equal, meaning that the velocity tangent to the ellipse is the same in both places. But the accelerations are vastly different, due to the gravitational field. And yet the ellipse shows the same curvature at both places.



This is physically impossible. Using the given motions, the ellipse is impossible to explain. The logical creation of an ellipse requires forces from both foci, but one of our foci is empty.

The vector accelerations in the diagram show that the innate velocity vector arrows
sideward/tangential to the orbit are the same length; that is V1 equals V2. However, the centripetal gravitational vector arrows inward to the sun are not equal: A1 is not equal to a2. Because of these inequalities we are led to an immense gravitational contradiction between Newtonian law and the equal arc shapes at perihelion (closest point to the sun) and aphelion (most distant point from the sun).

I know that many will cringe that I have claimed in my illustration that v1 = v2. Don't I know that the orbital velocity varies in an elliptical orbit? Yes I do. Once more, my velocities are not orbital velocities, they are tangential velocities.

In a nutshell, the orbital velocity describes an arc or curved line. It is the vector addition of the tangential velocity and the centripetal acceleration, over the same interval. Unfortunately, contemporary physics has forgotten his distinction. It usually conflates orbital velocity and tangential velocity. But the tangential velocity does not curve. It is a straight-line vector with its tail at the tangent. It does not curve even at the limit. It only gets very small at the limit. By going to the limit or to Newton's ultimate interval we do not curve the tangential velocity, we straighten out the arc. That is to say, we straighten out the orbital velocity so that we can apply a vector addition to it, putting it in the same equation as the straight tangential velocity.

To make the ellipse work, you have to vary not only the orbital velocity, but also the tangential velocity. To get the correct shape and curvature to the orbit, you have to vary the object's innate motion. But the object's innate motion cannot vary. The object is not self-propelled. It cannot cause forces upon itself, for the convenience of theorists or diagrams. Celestial bodies have one innate motion, and only one, and it cannot vary.


The orbital velocity varies; the perpendicular velocity cannot, sinced the perpendicular velocity expresses Newton's "innate motion". This means the only primary vector you can vary is the acceleration vector. In any gravitational field, that is the only non-compound vector that can be varying, without cheating in some way. Look closely at the diagram above. If you vary only the length of the acceleration vector, in the vector addition, then you must vary the curvature. The orbiter is going more slowly at aphelion, and this slower orbital velocity is due to the smaller acceleration vector, and only to the smaller acceleration. But if this is true, then the orbiter can't be describing the curve that is drawn by the ellipse. An orbiter with a given "innate motion" and a larger acceleration cannot possibly be describing the same curve as that same orbiter with the same innate motion and a smaller acceleration.

If we rigorously study the variable assignments of Kepler and Newton, what we find is this shape, not the ellipse:



You see, the curvature cannot be the same on both sides if the innate motion or tangential velocity is a constant.

As you can see [using gravitational theory], the orbital velocity at perihelion
[V2] is indeed greater than at aphelion [V1] as shown by the [hypotenuse] length of
the vector. But the tangential [sideward innate motion] or perpendicular velocities
at all points on the orbital path must be the same. Therefore, we must find the
curvatures [at perihelion and aphelion] as I have drawn them here. Now, perhaps,
you can more clearly see that [the differences in the curvatures of] these two ‘ends’
of the ellipses cannot be made to meet up [to form an ellipse]. You cannot have a
greater [sharper] curvature at perihelion and less [wider] curvature at aphelion and
draw any shape [in which the ends of these curves] will meet up.

An ellipse is simply not a potential orbit for the balancing of a tangential velocity and a single centripetal acceleration.

The usual answer to this is to show a summing of potential and kinetic energies in a closed loop and prove mathematically that all energy is conserved. But this fails to address the issue. I am not complaining here about a sum or an integral. Mathematically I am pointing at differentials. If you look at individual motions in any orbit that has three or more bodies, you will find that the differentials show a variation in the tangential velocity of the orbiting body. But natural bodies like planets and stars and moons cannot vary their tangential velocites on demand of the math. As I said, they are not self-propelled. They cannot make any corrections. If the differentials are showing a variation, this variation must be explained by an external force. Gravitational theory gives us no force to explain it.

Elliptical orbits cannot be explained with current gravitational theory, not Kepler's, not Newton's, not Einstein's.

M. Mathis


The tremendously important consequences of this evidence are breathtaking.

But of greatest importance, gravitational theory, as it is currently applied, cannot be made to conform with the “shapes” or the equations regarding elliptical orbits. The arcs simply do not meet up to form an ellipse with the sun at one focus. This not only applies to planetary orbits, but the failure of Newton’s laws and Einstein’s curved space explanation of these laws, also fail to explain elliptical orbits for every orbiting body in the universe for every planet orbiting a star, for every natural satellite orbiting a planet, for every asteroid orbiting the sun, even in the asteroid belt, as well as for every comet doing the same. It fails as well for the objects in the Kuiper belt and those in the Oort cloud belt. It fails for all the double, triple elliptically orbiting star systems in the galaxies that number into untold billions. All the small satellite galaxies orbiting the Milky Way Galaxy in elliptical orbits cannot do so based strictly on Newton’s laws. And what applies to our galaxy applies to the hundreds of billions of other galaxies in the universe which contain planetary systems, asteroids, comets planetary satellites and double, triple etc. orbiting stellar systems. Even the globular clusters in our galaxy on highly elliptical orbits, which number over 150, fail to meet this test. Galaxies orbiting other galaxies also fail to meet this test.

C. Ginenthal

FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION PARADOXES IV

The unbelievable deception used in the making of Kepler's works continued unabated with Newton's Principia.


I will be sent to the Principia, where Newton derives the equation a = v²/r. There we find the velocity assigned to the arc. True, but a page earlier, he assigned the straight line AB to the tangential velocity: "let the body by its innate force describe the right line AB". A right line is a straight line, and if Newton's motion is circular, it is at a tangent to the circle. So Newton has assigned two different velocities: a tangential velocity and an orbital velocity. According to Newton's own equations, we are given a tangential velocity, and then we seek an orbital velocity. So the two cannot be the same. We are GIVEN the tangential velocity. If the tangential velocity is already the orbital velocity, then we don’t need a derivation: we have nothing to seek! If you study Newton's derivation, you will see that the orbital velocity is always smaller than the tangential velocity. One number is smaller than the other. So they can't be the same.

The problem is that those who came after Newton notated them the same. He himself understood the difference between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, but he did not express this clearly with his variables. The Principia is notorious for its lack of numbers and variables. He did not create subscripts to differentiate the two, so history has conflated them. Physicists now think that v in the equation v = 2πr/t is the tangential velocity. And they think that they are going from a linear expression to an angular expression when they go from v to ω. But they aren't.

This problem has been buried ever since Newton used his new calculus to find the orbital or curved velocity given the tangential velocity. In The Principia, he is given the tangential velocity or straight-line motion, and he derives the orbital or curved motion from it, using his ultimate interval (like a limit). The velocity variable in a=v²/r must then be this new orbital velocity. So the old tangential velocity is lost. It has been buried from sight ever since. But in the ellipse, or any real orbit, we must continue to monitor the old tangential velocity, since we cannot allow it to vary without giving a mechanical explanation of that variation. If we see it varying in the ellipse, as I have shown, then we must ask how a planet can vary its innate motion to suit an orbit. How can either the planet itself, or the gravitational field, cause that velocity to vary? The planet cannot, because it is not self-propelled or self-correcting. The gravitational field cannot, because the gravitational field has no mechanism to influence that vector. Even Einstein admitted that the gravitational field had no influence at the tangent.

http://milesmathis.com/angle.html (you cannot put an orbital velocity into a linear kinetic energy equation; if you have an orbit and want to use the linear kinetic energy equation, you must use a tangential velocity)

http://milesmathis.com/lagrange2.html (on the misconceptions about kinetic energy and potential energy)

The tangential velocity is equal to the initial velocity of the planet, before capture by the field. The orbital velocity is the composite of the tangential velocity and the centripetal velocity. If the earth had only a tangential velocity, its trajectory would not curve. If it had only a centripetal velocity, it would move directly into the sun. It orbits because its trajectory is a vector addition of the two.


http://milesmathis.com/avr.html (the incredible trickery used by Newton to HIDE the fact that orbital velocity is not the same thing as tangential velocity)

I quoted Newton above as saying that the arc was the velocity, as derived by his method and by his equations (which still stand today). This means that the variable v in all final equations must be understood to be the orbital velocity. It is not the tangential velocity. The tangential velocity is shown by a straight-line vector along the tangent. That means that it moves in that direction. That is what the vector stands for. The tangential velocity does not curve, and it does not follow the curve of the arc. In the diagram above, the tangential velocity over the first interval is AB and the orbital velocity is Ab. Newton gives us the tangential velocity to start with, when he gives us AB; then we seek the orbital velocity. The velocity that follows the curve of the arc is the orbital velocity, and it is the velocity variable in Newton's final equation a = v²/r. Historically, physicists have not kept these two velocity variables separate, but you must learn to do so as you follow the arguments and diagrams in this paper. The two velocities have become conflated, and when we get to modern equations like v = rω, there is confusion about what v we are talking about. Contemporary textbooks tell us that the v in that equation is tangential velocity, but it isn't. It is orbital velocity.

M. Mathis


Thus we can understand how the conservation of momentum argument cannot be used to explain at all the elliptical orbit of a planet (or of a satellite): the tangential velocity (the "innate" motion) of a planet cannot change or vary.


"But because he later failed to differentiate between the tangential velocity and the orbital velocity, both his and Kepler's analyses of orbits have come down to us hiding magnificent messes.

An analysis of the differentials must show a variation in the tangential velocity of all orbiters, in order to correct for forces outside the main two. But orbiters cannot vary this velocity. They are not self-propelled. Newton told us that this tangential velocity was innate; an innate motion cannot vary. We have not shown any mechanism or cause of this variance, therefore we cannot let it vary. To put it another way, the variance is totally unexplained and unsupported. It has been covered up, possibly on purpose.

What this means is that orbital mechanics is just magic.

Kepler's ellipse has the same hidden problem, a problem caused by the general ignorance of the difference between orbital and tangential velocity. Kepler's ellipse doesn't work mechanically, since his second focus is uninhabited. The orbiter is forced to vary its tangential velocity to suit the math of the summed circuit, but no explanation of how it could do this is offered."

FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION PARADOXES V

The unit measuring rod thus appears a little shortened in relation to the system of co-ordinates by the presence of the gravitational field, if the rod is laid along a radius. With the tangential position, therefore, the gravitational field of the point of mass has no influence on the length of a rod.

A. Einstein (The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity, 1916)

Even in the catastrophically flawed GTR, we are told that if you have a point gravitational source lengths are contracted in the direction of the source and are not contracted normal to that direction.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864 (total demolition of STR/GTR)


"But in the ellipse, or any real orbit, we must continue to monitor the old tangential velocity, since we cannot allow it to vary without giving a mechanical explanation of that variation. If we see it varying in the ellipse, as I have shown, then we must ask how a planet can vary its innate motion to suit an orbit. How can either the planet itself, or the gravitational field, cause that velocity to vary? The planet cannot, because it is not self-propelled or self-correcting. The gravitational field cannot, because the gravitational field has no mechanism to influence that vector. Even Einstein admitted that the gravitational field had no influence at the tangent."


While the radial motion components are a function of the gravitational force between the objects, tangential velocities are not affected by gravitation.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_center_of_mass_tangential_motion.htm#.VyiCp9R961v


The kinetic energy K of a planet is ½mv², where v is the planet's tangential velocity.

"An analysis of the differentials must show a variation in the tangential velocity of all orbiters, in order to correct for forces outside the main two. But orbiters cannot vary this velocity. They are not self-propelled. Newton told us that this tangential velocity was innate; an innate motion cannot vary. We have not shown any mechanism or cause of this variance, therefore we cannot let it vary. To put it another way, the variance is totally unexplained and unsupported. It has been covered up, possibly on purpose.

What this means is that orbital mechanics is just magic."


This is the very reason why Kepler's New Astronomy HAD to be faked: there is no such thing as an elliptical orbit of a planet around the Sun.

The entire data on Mars was falsified/fudged (as we have seen in the first two parts of this series), and, as was noted in an important work on astrophysics: The Astronomia Nova is aimed at the mathematical construction of the Mars orbit in particular.


Even greater problems arise when we try to imagine how the earth was captured by the sun. How is an orbit like this created? How is any planetary orbit created? The textbooks never go there. By giving us the ball-on-a-string illustration, the book leaves the impression that the analogy is complete; that is, that the tangential velocity and the acceleration are conceptually connected in both instances. We are left with a fait accompli: since the two motions are tied to one another with the ball on a string, the two motions must be tied in the earth/sun example, and there is nothing to explain. But there is an awful lot to explain. To start with, in reality an orbit like this creates a hairline balance of two independent motions. The tangential motion and the centripetal motion must be perfectly balanced or the orbit will deteriorate immediately in one direction or another (inward or outward). Any satellite engineer knows this. There is one perfect distance that creates a stable orbit for a given velocity. Any other orbit requires the satellite to speed up or slow down—to make corrections. Obviously, the earth cannot make any corrections. It is not self-propelled. It cannot speed up or slow down. Therefore it must be taken to its optimum distance and kept there.

Now, think of the earth's orbit for a moment. Let's work backwards and see if we can imagine how the earth might get to that optimum distance, with just the optimum tangential velocity. If you reverse time, and conceptually back the earth out of orbit, you see that the only way you can do so is if you accelerate it out of there. If you keep the same velocity, it stays in orbit. If you decelerate, then it crashes into the sun. So you must accelerate the earth out of the orbit. But that means that unless the earth was ejected by the sun, it had to decelerate to reach its present position. If it is coming from outer space into the field of the sun, it must somehow decelerate in order to fall into its current position. But how can an object entering a gravitational field decelerate? It is getting closer to the sun: it should be accelerating. The only possibility appears to be a fortunate collision that accidentally throws it into the perfect spot. Even a planet ejected by the sun cannot reach any possible orbit, without a collision, since an ejected planet will not have any velocity tangential to the sun. There is no way to eject an object from the center of its future orbit with a velocity tangential to that orbit.

So, the unavoidable implication of historical theory is that all orbits must have been created by fortuitous collisions, either by planets arriving from outer space or being ejected by the sun. The problem is that planets arriving in orbits immediately after collisions are going to be damaged planets. Most likely they are going to be out of round. They are going to be missing chunks. This is a problem since imperfect planets create perturbations in orbits. Spins and wobbles are created, which cause uneven velocities and uneven forces. This should be fatal since the sort of orbit described by current theory is not correctable. There is no margin of error. Either the forces balance or they do not. If they do not, then the orbit should not be stable.

Some will interrupt here to point out that current theory provides that the earth was formed from a solar disc. It was not captured or ejected; it was simply always there, in some form. It congealed out of the nebula. But this answers nothing, for current theory fails to explain how this primordial disc of pre-planets or planetoids achieved its tangential motion in the first place (see below). Gravitational theory provides absolutely no mechanism, not even one as magical as gravity, to explain rotational motion in a gravitational field. It is the same question as to why galaxies rotate like wheels: they just do. We have a partial answer for why the stars don’t fly out into space: gravity. But we have no answer at all for why the stars move sideways to the gravitational field of the galaxy. If they weren’t captured, what set them in motion? The pat answer is “a spinning gravitational field”, but if you ask how a gravitational field imparts tangential velocity you get no answer. It is implied that the spin of the sun about its own axis somehow set the whole solar system to spinning, but this is mystical in the extreme. Almost no one thinks that the moon’s orbit is caused by the rotation of the earth about its own axis. No one thinks this because there is no mechanism to link the rotation of the earth to the orbit of the moon. There is no mechanism to link the orbit of the solar disc to the spin of the sun either, and yet it is accepted at face value.

M. Mathis

FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION PARADOXES VI




The ellipse, as a logical-looking orbit, falls apart from the very start.

"But, let's build that ellipse again, starting from aphelion. Let us draw the whole thing, just accepting that an ellipse must somehow be created, since we have evidence of them in the solar system. Finally, let us look for the "equivalent" circular orbit.


Meaning that if we have the same planet with the same initial velocity and we want to put it into a circular orbit, where do we put it? Turns out that the circle is completely outside the ellipse, and that it has a lot greater area. Remember that the only way we can explain the planet in ellipse beginning to dive toward the sun as we move it past aphelion is that its velocity is not great enough to keep it in circular orbit."


Remember, we find ourselves AT THE APHELION POINT WHERE THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD CANNOT INFLUENCE THE TANGENTIAL VELOCITY OF THE PLANET.


"Therefore, to put it into a stable circular orbit, we must move it further away from the sun at aphelion. If we do that then this distance becomes the radius of the circle, and we have our circular orbit. As you can see from this simple illustration, the path of the ellipse never crosses the path of the "equivalent" circle. If that is true, then the planet in ellipse can never reach a point where its perpendicular velocity overcomes the centripetal acceleration produced by the gravitational field. It never achieves a temporary escape velocity. No, it simply spirals into the sun. Its orbital velocity increases, yes. The "orbital velocity" continues to increase until the planet burns up in the sun's corona."



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..217D

Kepler's Fabricated Figures, by W.H. Donohue


With regard to the flight of the Phoenix, the solar transit of Mercury:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1650377#msg1650377

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

STATIONARY EARTH: THE ULTIMATE PROOF


“In the United States Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had performed an experiment
which confronted scientists with an appalling choice. Designed to show the existence of the ether…it had yielded a null result, leaving science with the alternatives of tossing aside the key which had helped to explain the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and light or of deciding that the earth was not in fact moving at all.” (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 57).

On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether: The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this...It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the Earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel’s explanation of aberration, and that the velocity of the Earth with respect to the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.

“On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, editors James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.

In the 1881 experiment they wrote the following, using the square of the velocity as proportional to the fringe-shifting to get the one-sixth value:

Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v²/V² = 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10⁷ wavelengths of yellow light; hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.

A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.


What, precisely, do all these figures mean in regard to the heliocentric/geocentric debate? In the heliocentric theory, the Earth is moving through the ether with both a diurnal and translational movement, that is, it spins on its axis at about 1054 mph (0.45 km/sec) and orbits the sun at about 66,000 mph (30 km/sec), which means that the Earth’s rotation speed is 1.6% of its revolution speed.

Clearly, then, the bulk of the ether resistance against the Earth will come from the translational movement as opposed to the diurnal rotation. But if we subtract the translational movement, the remaining resistance will come only from the diurnal movement. This situation is identical to what would occur in the geocentric model, since in the geocentric system there is no translational movement of the Earth against the ether, yet there is a diurnal movement. In other words, the universe’s ether is rotating around a fixed Earth at the same rate that the Earth in the heliocentric system would be rotating against the fixed ether, that is, on a 24-hour basis.

Accordingly, in the geocentric system only the diurnal movement of the Earth against the ether will show up as fringe shifts in the interferometer experiments, and thus we would expect a measurement of shifts much less than the fringe shifts corresponding to the translational movement of 30 km/sec. All things being equal, we would expect the diurnal movement to produce fringe-shifting corresponding to a mere fraction of the fringe-shifting expected for 30 km/sec.

This is precisely what we find in the description given above by Michelson and Morley (albeit, they did not attribute it to a non-translating Earth). They tell us that: “The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this.” A “twentieth part” of the fringe shifting corresponding to 30 km/sec brings us to fringe shifting corresponding to at least 1.5 km/sec. After they run this figure through their calculations, Michelson and Morley then tell us: “the velocity of the Earth with respect to the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.” One sixth of 30 km/sec is 4.8 km/sec, which agrees precisely with the average of 4.0 km/sec in the majority of the interferometer experiments. In brief, the geocentric model has a simple explanation for the unexpected results of the Michelson-Morley experiment: the Earth is fixed and the universe and its ether rotate around it.

Perhaps just as important concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment was, even with this small evidence of ether movement, the two scientists concluded that Fresnel’s “explanation of aberration” was “refuted” by their 1887 interferometer experiment. We will recall that Fresnel explained Arago’s stellar aberration results by postulating that it was caused by glass mediums “dragging” ether against an immobile ether that surrounded the glass. Interestingly enough, Michelson and Morley had previously stated in 1886 that, after the repeat of Fizeau’s experiment in 1884, they had, at that time, confirmed Fresnel’s formula stating: “the result of this work is therefore that the result announced by Fizeau is essentially correct: and that the luminiferous ether is entirely unaffected by the motion of the matter which it permeates.” So we have Michelson and Morley giving us two different stories, but the one to which they adhere is the 1887 judgment showing that science had no answer to Arago’s experiment and that the Earth’s 30 km/sec clip through space was coming to a screeching halt unless somebody could come up with an explanation.

Still, since the measured ether movement came nowhere near the expected 30 km/sec, the science community invariably considered the Michelson-Morley results as “null.” There were a few voices, however, that did not consider the results trivial. As early as 1902, W. M. Hicks, made a thorough criticism of the experiment and concluded that instead of giving a null result, the numerical data published in Michelson-Morley’s paper shows distinct evidence of an expected effect (i.e., ether drift). Unfortunately, the science community has completely ignored Hicks’ paper.


 

I would also add that if we calculate based on the raw data of the 1881 experiment, and since MM said that the displacement was between one twentieth and perhaps less than one fortieth of what they expected, if we take one fortieth of 30 km/sec we have 0.75 km/sec. One fiftieth would be precisely 0.45 km/sec, the exact figure corresponding to the movement of ether you stated at the equator.

 

In any case, the important theme we wanted to being out in GWW in light of all these experiments is: (a) the fringe shifts were no where near what would be expected for an Earth moving at 30km/sec around the sun, and (b) that the results of all the interferometer experiments showed that they did not exhibit “null” results, but results in keeping with some movement between Earth and its environment (ether-drift currents circulating above the Earth).

 

The heliocentrists, of course, are in a quagmire either way, since if they choose to attribute the ether drift to a rotation of the Earth in an immovable environment, then they must also incorporate a revolution of the Earth around the sun to account for the seasons, which then requires at least a 30 km/sec drift, and thus the whole thing falls like a house of cards.

(from Galileo Was Wrong, R. Sungenis)


The Michelson-Morley experiments were taken to a more precise level by Dr. Dayton Miller (Princeton University).

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928)


http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Point-a-the-ether,15



The most significant development since Miller has been the
experiments of Yuri Galaev of the Institute of Radiophysics and
Electronics in the Ukraine. Galaev made independent measure-
ments of ether-drift using radiofrequency and optical wave
bands. His research "confirmed Miller's results down
to the details".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

Yuri Galaev, Ph.D.; Senior research officer of the Institute for Radiophysics & Electronics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS)

THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


Dr. Galaev remarks:

Orbital component of the ether drift velocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around the Sun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected [during the Dayton Miller experiments].


Dr. Galaev also concludes:

The method action is based on the development regularities of viscous liquid or gas streams in the directing systems. The significant measurement results have been obtained statistically. The development of the ether drift required effects has been shown. The measured value of the ether kinematic viscosity on the value order has coincided with its calculated value.


The most precise experiments ever undertaken in ether-drift detection thus prove that the Earth does not orbit the Sun at a speed of 30km/s.

ORBITAL MOTION SAGNAC EFFECT PARADOX

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion?

Why is the Earth orbital Sagnac effect missing from GPS?


The Sagnac effect is totally explained by ether theory since there is no such thing as the theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864 (total demolition of STR/GTR)

The Sagnac effect proves that it is the ether which is rotating above a fixed Earth.


In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf


Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus,
ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.


First, the gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.

Second, as Charles Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether
drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.


https://web.archive.org/web/20070315063351/http://egtphysics.net/Index.htm (select the Ether Drift option to access the article)

(one can also do a google search using http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/EtherDrift.pdf and then access the html/in cache format to view the document)


BY ASSUMING THAT STR IS CORRECT, MODERN ASTROPHYSICS MUST ALSO ASSUME THAT THE ORBITAL VELOCITY OF THE EARTH AROUND THE SUN, IN AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT, MUST BE A CONSTANT.

However, upon further reflection, it became
apparent that one significant complication with respect to
the two frames was not dealt with. Specifically, GPS was
compared in the two frames assuming that the earth’s
orbital velocity was constant.

What is the significance of this interim conclusion? We
have shown that, assuming the speed of light is isotropic
in the sun’s frame, the velocity of clocks on the spinning
earth will cause them to be biased by just the amount
needed to make it appear as if the speed of light is
actually isotropic on the earth.

However, the true believer in
SRT can argue that this is simply a coincidence and that it
is still the magic of SRT which automatically causes the
speed of light to be isotropic on the earth. There is no way
to refute his argument in this simplified case where we
have assumed that the direction of the orbital velocity
vector is constant. But, when the change in the orbital
velocity direction is allowed, we get an astonishing result.

By contrast, if SRT/GRT is
correct, we would expect that the clocks on earth and in
the GPS system would require an adjustment for the
effect of the sun’s differential gravitational potential.
Since clocks on earth and in the GPS system function
properly by ignoring the effect of the sun’s gravitational
potential, we must conclude that SRT/GRT is wrong.

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf


Dynamic Ether:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm



Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation = Ether

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54264.msg1337075#msg1337075


Ether and the slowing of clocks:


http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/rickeressen.pdf (Louis Essen, the greatest expert on atomic clocks of the 20th century, dismisses the Hafele-Keating experimet)

http://www.anti-relativity.com/hafelekeatingdebunk.htm (total debunking of the failed Hafele-Keating experiment, a must read)

"M. Ruderfer stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.

What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.


Ruderfer pointed out that the two effects (transit time and clock rate) on the source and
detector would cancel and render all such experiment incapable of detecting an ether
wind. Unfortunately, each of the experimenters ignored Ruderfer’s erratum. In spite of
the Ruderfer erratum, claims are repeatedly found in the literature that the spinning
Mossbauer experiments support the special theory. They do not. They are simply silent
as far as any direct evidence is concerned."

ORBITAL MOTION SAGNAC EFFECT PARADOX II


GPS technology effectively proves the fallacy of STR/GTR:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/illusion/


http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.2687.pdf

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/viewFile/12113/9250

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/30130/17851

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/41256/22655



M. Ruderfer experiment, 1960-1961:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66858.msg1784179#msg1784179


Experiments which invalidate STR, includes a description of the Ruderfer experiment:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/NPA/Doug_Marett_Presentation_NPA18.pdf


MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) is based on the Lorentz transformation (Lorentz factor/contraction), and as such, is equally invalid.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf


The colossal mistakes committed by Lorentz and Einstein in deriving the Lorentz transformation/factor:

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-4-the-michelson-morley-experiment/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-5-the-lorentz-transformation/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-1-introduction/

Dr. Hans Zweig, Stanford University: http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/hans-j-zweig/



A satellite/Cosmosphere orbits above the flat plane of the Earth using the Biefeld-Brown effect, which in turn utilizes the Tesla cosmic ray device as an energy/power source.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935


Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

But those were not Maxwell's equations, but the Heaviside-Lorentz equations.

The original J.C. Maxwell equations are based on a variable speed of light concept:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521


http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/ricker2.pdf


http://lowenergytransmutations.org/documents/The_Real_Einstein_Monti_Cesarano.doc

(Ives-Stillwell experiment, MM experiment, Sagnac experiment analyzed)


http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20120800006_80885197.pdf (pg. 718-720, 744)

Another observation that also clearly conflicts with the
constancy and isotropy of the velocity of light was discovered
during the implementation and calibration of
set-ups for Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)
radio astronomy observations. The resolution of optical
and radio astronomy observations can be improved by
orders of magnitude by analyzing the data recorded in
different observatories over the earth surface using interferometric
methods. The condition is that these data be
synchronous. The method consists in superposing coherently
the data recorded in different observatories with the
help of computers taking into account the instantaneous
position of the antennas etc. For the (VLBI) radio astronomy
observations clock synchronization at intercontinental
distances via the GPS achieve 0.1 ns. Nevertheless,
on testing the so synchronized clocks by confronting
them with the arrival of the wave fronts from distant
pulsars, which according to the TR may be synchronous,
it was observed that the pulsar signal reaches the foregoing
side of Earth 4.2 μs before the rear side along the
orbital motion of Earth. This discrepancy exceeds
the time resolution by more than four orders of magnitude.
Nevertheless along the transverse direction the arrival
of the pulsar signal was synchronous. This apparent
discrepancy in the GPS clock synchronization is again
raising very hot debates about the nature of space. Some
people speak of scandalous clocks that are biased
along the Earth’s orbital motion, others see in these
facts definitive prove that the velocity of light along different
directions within the solar system is not the same.


Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed. This is the
well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem.
In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent. Surprisingly and happily the GPS
works better than expected from the TR.


Obviously the gravitational
slowing of the atomic clocks on Earth cannot be due to
relative velocity because these clocks rest with respect to
the laboratory observer. What is immediately disturbing
here is that two completely distinct physical causes produce
identical effects, which by it alone is highly suspicious.
GR gives only a geometrical interpretation to the
gravitational time dilation. However, if motions cause
time dilation, why then does the orbital motion of Earth
suppress the time dilation caused by the solar gravitational
potential on the earthbased and GPS clocks? Absurdly
in one case motion causes time dilation and in the
other case it suppresses it. This contradiction lets evident
that what causes the gravitational time dilation is not the
gravitational potential and that moreover this time dilation
cannot be caused by a scalar quantity. If the time dilation
shown by the atomic clocks within the earthbased
laboratories is not due to the gravitational potential and
cannot be due to relative velocity too then it is necessarily
due to some other cause. This impasse once more
puts in check the central idea of the TR, according to
which the relative velocity with respect to the observer is
the physical parameter that rules the effects of motions.
The above facts show that the parameter that rules the
effects of motions is not relative velocity but a velocity
of a more fundamental nature.


See also http://www.hrpub.org/download/20150510/UJPA2-18403649.pdf (pg. 147)


This "more fundamental nature", of course, is the effect exerted by the ether on matter.

THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


AWT (aetheric wind theory) misconceptions:

Dark matter which fills 'empty' space is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.


Let me explain:

Aether = medium through which ETHER flows

Ether = scalar waves consisting of subquarks strings

The density of aether can vary.


RE theory requires a full void, otherwise the equations which "describe" the orbits of the planets will have to include friction terms.


KEPLER MOTION

In an appropriate coordinate system, the motion of a planet around the sun (considered as fixed) with the attractive force being proportional to the inverse square of the distance /z/ of the planet from the sun is given by the solution of the second order conservative system with the potential function -/z/^-1 for z =/0.

A mechanical system without friction can be described in the Hamiltonian formulation.


ONCE ONE MENTIONS AETHER, THE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS WHICH DESCRIBE THE MOTION OF THE CELESTIAL SPHERES, IN THE HELIOCENTRICAL THEORY, WILL NO LONGER BE A HAMILTONIAN, THAT IS, FRICTION TERMS WILL HAVE TO BE INSERTED.


Here is another misconception:

With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

He did not realize that ether = friction, so therefore, the very equations of motion, thought to be Hamiltonian, must be modified to include the frictional effect of ether/aether upon the celestial bodies...

ISS SHUTS DOWN ITS CAMERA DURING THE MARCH 20, 2015, SOLAR ECLIPSE: THE SOLAR TRANSIT PHOTOGRAPHS

Thierry Legault ISS solar transit during the solar eclipse photograph:

http://www.astrophoto.fr/eclipse110104_solar_transit_33.jpg (can be viewed in very large format)



T. Legault, solar transit/eclipse video:




ISS shuts down its camera during the solar eclipse:





A commentary from one of the viewers:

What else is Suspicious is the fact this thing looks that big against the sun. When you look at comparative models of the earth's size against the size of the sun it is supposedly very very small yet this ISS pictures shows it being massive in size. I know the ISS is closer to earth thus would present as larger. However if its this huge why don't we see it then on a regular basis. According to size presentation here it is MASSIVE. We should see it present against the moon, we don't.


Here are the official figures offered by modern astronomy:

Diameter of the sun: 1.4 million kilometers

ISS-sun distance: 148,000,000 kilometers

Diameter of the moon: 3,475 kilometers

Earth-moon distance: 384,000 kilometers

Diameter of Mercury: 4,878 kilometers

ISS-Mercury distance: 77 million kilometers (average)


Transit of Mercury across the sun:



Transit of Atlantis across the sun:

http://www.twanslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shuttle.jpg

Transit of Mercury across the sun:



Transit of Atlantis and Hubble across the sun:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0905/atlantisHSTinset_2009may13_legault.jpg

Transit of Atlantis and ISS across the sun, close-up image:

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/iss_atlantis_2010_crop-580x435.jpg

Exactly the same distance/size as in the Mercury solar transit photographs.


Transit of Mercury across the sun:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/09/00/00644B2200000258-0-image-a-24_1462749655102.jpg

Transit of ISS across the sun:

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_2010.jpg


NO 148,000,000 KM BETWEEN THE SUN THE ISS/Atlantis (slow motion video):




SAME distance as in the following Mercury solar transit video:



Many more videos here (including the ISS lunar transit)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg994892#msg994892


Let us get back to the first photograph.


http://www.astrophoto.fr/eclipse110104_solar_transit_33.jpg (can be viewed in very large format)



The Black Sun appears to be a disk and not a sphere, exactly as in the Bruenjes Antarctica images:



The diameter of the ISS looks exactly the same as the diameter of Mercury (during solar transit, see photographs above), and YET we are told that the diameters of Mercury and the Moon are very similar, while the diameter of the ISS is some 100 meters.

These images and photographs show the exact size of our geocentric planetary system: much smaller than we have been led to believe.

ISS LUNAR TRANSIT - DOUBLE TRANSIT ISS/MERCURY - HUBBLE/VENUS ACROSS THE SUN



ISS across the Moon: no 384,000 km in between



ISS across the Sun: certainly no 148,000,000 km in between; the distance is strikingly similar to the lunar transit of the ISS (ISS-Moon distance)


T. Legault: double transit across the sun, Mercury and the ISS

https://web.archive.org/web/20170103052301/https://www.diyphotography.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/mercury-transit-2016-50legault.jpg

A close up image:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170220105241/http://www.diyphotography.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/mercury-transit-2016-crop.jpg

Comparing this photograph with the transit during the solar eclipse we can see that the Black Sun is much larger than Mercury (since the Moon has the same diameter as that of the Black Sun, it is very much larger than Mercury also).



http://www.astrophoto.fr/eclipse110104_solar_transit_33.jpg (can be viewed in very large format)


SUN/BLACK SUN/MOON/SHADOW MOON/JUPITER: some 600 meters in diameter (we could choose 1000 sacred cubits, 636 meters)

MERCURY: some 30 meters in diameter

HUBBLE/VENUS DOUBLE SOLAR TRANSIT by T. Legault

http://www.universetoday.com/95709/thierry-legault-one-transit-is-not-enough/

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/transit_venus_hst_33_marks-580x580.jpg

(copyright Thierry Legault)

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/legault-close-up-transit.jpg (can be viewed in very large format)



(copyright Thierry Legault)

TESLA'S BLACK KNIGHT/ZARDOZ SATELLITE SIGNALS



I can never forget the first sensations I experienced when it dawned upon me that I had observed something possibly of incalculable consequences to mankind. I felt as though I were present at the birth of a new knowledge or the revelation of a great truth. Even now, at times, I can vividly recall the incident, and see my apparatus as though it were actually before me. My first observations positively terrified me, as there was present in them something mysterious, not to say supernatural, and I was alone in my laboratory at night; but at that time the idea of these disturbances being intelligently controlled signals did not yet present itself to me.

The changes I noted were taking place periodically, and with such a clear suggestion of number and order that they were not traceable to any cause then known to me. I was familiar, of course, with such electrical disturbances as are produced by the sun, Aurora Borealis and earth currents, and I was as sure as I could be of any fact that these variations were due to none of these causes. The nature of my experiments precluded the possibility of the changes being produced by atmospheric disturbances, as has been rashly asserted by some. It was some time afterward when the thought flashed upon my mind that the disturbances I had observed might be due to an intelligent control. Although I could not decipher their meaning, it was impossible for me to think of them as having been entirely accidental. The feeling is constantly growing on me that I had been the first to hear the greeting of one planet to another. . . . I was not merely beholding a vision, but had caught sight of a great and profound truth.” – Nikola Tesla, from his article “Talking With Planets”

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1901-02-09.htm

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/11/30/the-black-knight-satellite-whats-this-object-nikola-tesla-concluded-was-extraterrestrial/

Tesla concluded that these signals, or this strange unnatural object they originate from, was indeed extraterrestrial.

At first he assumed they were originating from Mars.
 
Later he changed that opinion and stated in one of his new conferences that the signal was coming from somewhere much closer in space.

"The signals are too strong to have traveled the great distances from Mars to Earth," wrote Tesla. "So I am forced to admit to myself that the sources must come from somewhere in nearby space or even the moon.

https://archive.org/stream/TheLostJournalsOfNikolaTesla/The%20Lost%20Journals%20Of%20Nikola%20Tesla_djvu.txt

A few years later, Guglielmo Marconi was intercepting a strange unknown artificial signal.

http://theunredacted.com/the-black-knight-satellite-sentinel-from-space/


In December 1927, Carl Stoermer, the Norwegian Professor of Mathematics at University in Olso, and explorer of echo radio was contacted by two American scientists, Leo C. Young, radio engineer and Dr. A. Hoyt Taylor, chief consultant of electronics at the naval research laboratory. During their experiments with radio waves, Young and Taylor observed unnatural signals coming from space.

By December 1928, a number of scientists were interested – Jurgen Hals of Phillips Einddhoven laboratories in Holland had discussed his findings with Professor Carl Stormer of Oslo, mentioning three-second delays he had experienced with an experimental radio transmitter. After another year, on October 28 1929, Dr Van der Pol, also of Phillips, confirmed that he had noted further odd echoes from a planned emission of impulses at the same time every morning. It was van der Pol’s analysis of the delay between emissions and the reciept of their echoes, always on the same wavelength, that effectively excluded ideas that they may have been bouncing off the Moon, or inner Van Allen belt, or that they might have been somehow stored and reflected from layers of ionised gas.


Zardoz - the 1974 classic movie, directed by John Boorman, which features the Earth covered by a dome, beyond which live superhuman beings, and who communicate with the rest of the population using a satellite (psychic remote control).




On May 14, 1954, several newspapers published articles centered on a statement belonging to retired Major D. E. Keyhoe. At the time, Keyhoe believed the Earth was circled by one — if not two artificial satellites. Scientists at the famous White Sands government facility in New Mexico were actively researching this possibility and trying to determine the purpose and origin of these objects.

http://locklip.com/the-myth-and-truth-about-the-13000-year-old-alien-satellite/prettyPhoto/1/


It is to be noted that I am only using references which are dated prior to 1954, including the discoveries made by Nikola Tesla in 1899.



Live images of the Zardoz satellite can be seen on youtube from a video shot in Dayton, Ohio, this spring.

Why Dayton, Ohio? That is the location where a top secret weapon payload was loaded on a US Air Force C-130 cargo plane at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.


Given the fact that the satellite was orbiting above the Earth at least in the period 1899-1928, it is clear that it was using the Biefeld-Brown effect as its source of energy, another evident proof that terrestrial gravity is not attractive at all.

The true FE map, the global Piri Reis map, has a center: it is located somewhere very near to the western coastline of Anatolia, the Garden of Eden, the place of mount Olympus/Meru (some 20-25 km in height).

It has an emissive pole (what we now call the South Pole), located over Antarctica (which is larger that we have been led to believe), which is not covered by ice, and cannot be accessed by land or by air.

It also has a receptive pole (North Pole), located over the northern part of Greenland (featured also on the North Pole Mercator map).

The Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis are caused by the orbiting AURORA moon/planet (one for each pole), documented in the various legends around the world. It only orbits inside this territory (perhaps with a diameter of some 1,000 km): it is the "inner sun" of the hollow earth theory believers.

It also provides light in the northern and southern pole regions during some periods of the year.

Aurora, sister of the Sun and of the Moon:

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Eos.html


The Zardoz satellite was built by the architects of the Gizeh Pyramid, and it is used apparently to provide a view of the Earth inside the dome (dome = aether/ether barrier/shield).

TESLA'S BLACK KNIGHT/ZARDOZ SATELLITE SIGNALS II

In May 1929, J. Galle and G. Talon made new successful research of the LDE phenomenon:

"... In May 1929, a French expedition was in Indo-China to study an eclipse of the Sun. J B Galle and G Talon, captain of the naval vessel L'Inconstant, had orders to study the effects of the eclipse on radio propagation, particularly long delayed echoes. They used a 500 watt transmitter with a 20 meter aerial attached to an 8 meter mast, powered by the generators of the Indo-China Hydrographic Service vessel La Perouse. The two aptly named ships sailed from Saigon on May 2nd, and on May 5th they conducted test transmissions in "la baie de Penitencier", PouloCondere, and detected long delayed echoes. Weather conditions prevented work on May 6th and 7th, but on the 8th the ships were back on station and transmitted for the first ten minutes of every half hour.

On May 9th, the day of the eclipse, signals were sent for nearly six hours with one 20 minute break, and again for ten minutes in every half hour the following day. Two dots were sent every 30 seconds on 25 metres wavelength, varying in a fixed musical sequences to aid correct identification and timing of the echoes. Large numbers of echoes were heard, clearly divided into two groups: weak echoes, about 1/100 the original signal strength, and strong ones 1/3 to 1/5 the intensity of the transmitted signal, with no significant relation between strength and delay time. (These intensities are too great for natural reflection at such apparent distances, but no-one seems to have thought of that at the time.)

In their preliminary report Galle and Talon said echoes stopped altogether during the totality of the eclipse, but in fact they paused 3 1/2 minutes before the eclipse became total and began again half way through it. Delay times ranged from 1 second to 30 seconds, though two 31 second echoes and of 32 seconds were heard between 15.40 and 16.00 on the day of the eclipse. 1 and 2 second echoes might seem impossible for a probe in the Moon's orbit, but for an extraordinary circumstance.

At 14h 19m 29s on the day of the eclipse the operator "forgot" to send the required dots, but 5 and 10 second echoes were heard nonetheless. From this Galle and Talon concluded that some echoes might have 40 seconds delay or more: either their musical tone sequences let them down, or they were unable to believe evidence that the probe was anticipating their signals as it transmitted its "replies".


https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.4054.pdf


Of course, N. Tesla's detection equipment was much more precise, in fact no other scientist has been able to duplicate it to the present time.

What Tesla was able to accomplish is to detect SCALAR SIGNALS, using his Teslascope machine: the very source for his extremely precise recording of the pulses.


G. Hodowanec was able to duplicate Tesla's detection of scalar waves using however equipment that was less precise than the Teslascope:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_11.htm

http://lamarzulli.net/April_2013%20PDF.pdf


Using the Teslascope, Tesla made this statement:

"The signals are too strong to have traveled the great distances from Mars to Earth," wrote Tesla. "So I am forced to admit to myself that the sources must come from somewhere in nearby space or even the moon.

This means that the Zardoz satellite is able to emit scalar waves.


We are getting signals from clouds one hundred miles away.

N. Tesla, 1899


The arrangement of my receiving apparatus and the character of the disturbances recorded precluded the possibility of their being of terrestrial origin, and I also eliminated the influence of the Sun, Moon, and Venus. As I announced, the signals consisted in a regular repetition of numbers.

N. Tesla, 1921

SIRIUS - EARTH DISTANCE: LESS THAN 50 KILOMETERS

The acceleration of the rate of axial precession is a basic fact of science:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

And the data is this:

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


A TOTAL AND COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN ORBITAL MECHANICS.


The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).


Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.


Dr. Jad Buchwald (Caltech):

Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history."


The distance from Sirius to Earth cannot be measured in light years, millions of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even in the hundreds of kilometers: both the Sun and Sirius are linked/connected by the SAME FIELD, which makes it possible for both these heavenly bodies to precisely keep up with the exponentially increasing rate of precession.

Moreover, here we have a basic proof of the existence of the second dome (shield/ether barrier): the first dome separates the Earth's atmosphere from the rotational gravitational force acting upon the Sun/Moon/Shadow Moon/Black Sun/planets/stars; the second dome encloses the aether/ether field necessary to account for the rotation of the planets/stars.


The fact that Sirius seems to maintain its position relative to the position of the sun was a surprise to most scientists (aware of precession), when it was first noticed by the French scientific community following the Egyptian discoveries of Napoleon (and the Dendera Zodiac) in the early 1800’s. Perhaps to save the lunisolar theory of precession, or at least to make sense of physics as then taught, physicist, astronomer, mathematician Jean-Baptiste Biot (21 April 1774 – 3 February 1862) proclaimed that this phenomenon was an oddity of the latitude and horizon around Dendera, meaning it just seemed as if Sirius was immune to the effects of precession. And to this day this is the assumption of many astronomers and astrophysicists.   Physicist Jed Z. Buchwald, professor of history and science and technology (Caltech and MIT) commented on this topic in his article Egyptian Stars Under Paris Skies, when he noted:

"The rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens and important to Egyptians as the signal for the annual flooding of the Nile, was assumed by the French physicists to move with relation to the sun as do the constellations of the zodiac. It does not, however, as we see here."



The curved line dividing the lit from the dark regions represents the horizon near Dendera. The blue lines show the locations of the ecliptic with respect to the horizon at five helical risings separated by hundreds of years. The vernal points mark the equinoxes at these times, and the circled numbers on the lower right indicate the corresponding positions of Sirius. Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

However, wishing to deduce an establishment of a Sothic year of 365.25 days based on the flooding of the Nile in relation to the remarkable astronomical phenomenon of the helical rising of Sirius is in the words of the Egyptologist R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, "a feat of skill which would dignify clairvoyance rather than ratiocination."

R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, “Sacred Science”, Inner Traditions (1982)

At this point it would be interesting to mention that Otto Neugebauer, who wrote extensively about Babylonian astronomy, also discussed the so-called Solstice-Equinox-Sirius texts, which formed part of the “Astronomical Diaries”. These texts list equinoxes, solstices, heliacal risings and settings of Sirius from the period of around 600 BCE and around 330 BCE. Apparently, the position of Sirius relative to the solstices and equinoxes did not change over time with precession.

http://saturniancosmology.org/files/calendar/precession.txt


It is recognized that from the beginning of the empire and during the entire dynastic period the rising of Sirius with the Sun always occurred around the time of the Summer solstice.

The implication of this astronomical fact is best explained by Jed Z. Buchwald, a distinguished Professor of History and Science, in his paper “Egyptian Stars under Paris Skies” (Caltech, Engineering & Science No. 4, 2003), where he discusses the meaning of the Zodiac that has been engraved in the ceiling of the temple of Dendera in Egypt:

“The solstice is, after all, extraordinarily hard to pin-point by observation, and in any case it was known from Greek texts that the Egyptians were particularly concerned with the heliacal rising of the brightest star in the sky, Sirius—that is, with the night when Sirius first appears, just before dawn. In Egyptian prehistory this event certainly preceded the annual flooding of the Nile, which was of obvious agricultural importance. Would not precession have moved Sirius along with the zodiacal stars, eventually decoupling its heliacal rising from the solstice, and so from the annual inundation? We know today that the inundation occurs after the June beginning of the rainy season in Ethiopia, where the Blue Nile rises. And yet Sirius’ heliacal rising remained a central marker of the year throughout Egyptian history.” (p 25)

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history. Indeed they do, though it’s doubtful that Burckhardt and Coraboeuf had thought it through. Because of Sirius’ position, and the latitudes at which the Egyptians observed the sky, both Sirius’ heliacal rising and the summer solstice remained nearly the same number of days apart throughout Egyptian history even though the zodiac moves slowly around the ecliptic." (pp 29)

Buchwald, who produced a revealing diagram on the ‘Heliacal Risings of Sirius’ in relation to the vernal points (for the period of 2900 BCE to 2941 CE at intervals of 1460 years) using TheSky software, makes it very clear that "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes - and so from the solstices - throughout these many centuries, despite precession".


According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac, Karine Gadré,  the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:

“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”

Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:

"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."

Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)




An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:

Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18


This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.



An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:

Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18


This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.